I recently stumbled on the word Sapiosexual, which is defined ‘as a behaviour of becoming attracted or aroused by intelligence and its use’. The best definition I have found defined sapiosexual as: “liking any person, without being sexually discriminative, because of their wisdom, smarts, and your shared learnings” or “a form of sexual orientation characterised by a strong attraction to intelligence in others, often regardless of gender and/or conventional attractiveness”.
Sapiosexual is a recently construed word which has been made popular on social networking sites such as Facebook, Twitter e.tc. However, the Collins Dictionary is yet to accept it as an English word for ‘lack of evidence of usage’ and it is yet to be added to the Oxford dictionary as well. Despite this, the word have continued to generated huge interest, usage and articles by people who share a form of connection with the word (i.e) individuals who perceive themselves as intelligent and are attracted/aroused in the company of someone similar.
Simply put, the word sapiosexual is an ego booster of some sort to people who would like to see themselves as one. I also generally think that although IQs may vary, it doesn’t mean that we all don’t have a level of it. Hence, we all tend to exhibit sapiosexual characteristics and have great conversations with people on issues of similar interests – whether it involves topical issues around the global economy or international politics to the latest fashion trend or where to get the latest celebrity gossips. What constitute as intelligent for an individual, may be considered as dull and boring by someone else. This is what makes us unique as individuals and makes us cherish the times we spend with people with similar interest as us.
It’s funny how people are quick to use the cliché ‘opposite attracts’ but I am yet to find someone whose personality is complete opposite from mine that I find interesting. At the very least, there must be a semblance of interests, values and intelligence similar to mine to pull me in and vice versa. When I do meet someone whose personality is different from mine, I use the opportunity to learn something new even if the experience in shortlived. I have learnt that differences in personality or opinion all add up to the fun and is what makes life so interesting. However, I can not dispute the fact that great conversations have won my heart over some love interest but at other times, it has made me not to proceed any further.
So I totally get how this word is becoming a buzz words amongst people who would like to see themselves in that light. I read an article recently, written by a male and he wrote ‘…any woman, no matter how good-looking she is, must be capable of offering stimulating conversation. She must be capable of defending her stances in rhetorical battles when challenged. I cannot, and will not be attracted to a woman if she is incapable of conversation”. His female readers were quick to lash on to him because they felt the article was too condescending for women. They may as well be right as I feel that there is a thin line between intelligence and pride. I don’t see anything wrong I describing oneself as sapiosexual (if you consider yourself as one) but why rub it in people’s faces? Instead, endeavour to know the proper context and situation where it will be of good use without necessarily making any particular gender or class of individuals feel less superior to you.
Perhaps sapiosexuals can also take note of the following pointers to enable them stay level-headed:
- Do not take yourself too seriously
- If you claim to be sapiosexual, then don’t rub it in people’s faces
- Gender does not determine the level of one’s intelligence
- Intelligence can also be a product of so many factors (i.e) life experiences
So back to the dictionary debate. If words like ‘selfie’ (a photograph that one has taken of oneself, typically one taken with a smartphone or webcam and uploaded to a social media website); ‘unlike’ (withdraw one’s liking or approval of (a web page or posting on a social media website that one has previously liked); and ‘twerk’ (dance to popular music in a sexually provocative manner involving thrusting hip movements and a low, squatting stance) all made it to the Oxford dictionary in August 2013, then my question is: what is stopping ‘sapiosexual’ from making it to this list as well? For one, the words mentioned above have all been made popular by its usage on social networking sites as well.
Depending on whether or not you ascribe to the usage of the word, it shouldn’t stop it from being included in the dictionary. At least that is what my Chatty Mind thinks. What do you think?