Sapiosexuality and the Big/little dynamic

[dariachick]

Do you think there is room for Sapiosexuality in a Big/little dynamic or are they diametrically opposed?

[Hallodri]

Sapiosexuality - the attraction to intelligence or wisdom. I guess the question then becomes "is the big attracted to the little only when they are in character?" If the answer is yes, then they probably are opposed.

[MrB]

I have found myself attracted to littles by there inteligence although it has been when they are not in little space. It really depends on how much time the little spends in little space I feel. Although I can only speak from my experiences so it also depends on the big and what they want from the relationship

[LoralieHaze]

For anyone to state that these are opposed would be to imply that most/all littles are lacking in intelligence. Cg/l is about the child-like psychology within an adult, not about any of us acting like we're dumb. Sure, I might not be the brightest bulb while in little space but that doesn't affect any of the knowledge that I have the rest of the time. Me feeling like a 5 year old when I go into Toys R Us doesn't later impede my ability to have meaningful discussions about politics, religion, or philosophy with my Daddy. 

 

I'm sure there are people here who are purposely seeking out someone less intelligent than they are but that would be because of their own insecurity and/or because they want a non-consensual imbalance of power from the beginning.

[Guest Little_Galaxy]

Personally, I feel it's part of the draw to DD/lg. Being guided by someone wise and genuinely intelligent is a huge turn on for me.  Many littles are smart people and to say otherwise would be insulting... Behaving like a child on occasion doesn't remove someones mind or the knowledge it contains. It just serves as a temporary escape or outlet. I believe being a little involves a lot of natural creativity as well which is another type of intelligence people could be attracted to. Sapiosexuality and the Cg/l dynamic aren't diametrically opposed at all. I think they go hand in hand. That's just my interpretation.

Edited November 3, 2016 by Little_Galaxy

[stargirl]

For anyone to state that these are opposed would be to imply that most/all littles are lacking in intelligence. Cg/l is about the child-like psychology within an adult, not about any of us acting like we're dumb. Sure, I might not be the brightest bulb while in little space but that doesn't affect any of the knowledge that I have the rest of the time. Me feeling like a 5 year old when I go into Toys R Us doesn't later impede my ability to have meaningful discussions about politics, religion, or philosophy with my Daddy. 

 

I'm sure there are people here who are purposely seeking out someone less intelligent than they are but that would be because of their own insecurity and/or because they want a non-consensual imbalance of power from the beginning.

 

THIS. 

 

But, also...

Being little or in little space does not strip you of your intelligence. I could see things getting more "primal", but little space never means that the little person is lacking in wisdom or wits. It is the Caregiver's responsibility to educate themselves and not perceive submissives as lesser than or dumb for revealing one of the many layers that person's character and personality.

 

End of rant  

Edited November 1, 2016 by stargirl

[daddies_velvet_kitty]

As someone who is constantly in some sort of little space you can still be smart! I know my daddy thinks I'm super smart- even tho I still run around stores and play with stuffies. Most people come to me for homework help (im in college) even tho they know that I have a childlike personality. Being little and being smart can go hand in hand. And besides, sometimes children are so open minded they are smarter than adults who are stuck in their ways. 

[Guest blah911]

people who claim to be sapiophiles, in my experience at least, usually are attracted to people who are "nerdy" which is more of a culture than actual intellect and big or littles can be nerdy so should work just fine.

[Little Illy]

As Sapiosexuals interact, I don't think there is a single dynamic they are excluded from. But rather, it may just take a different twist on things. Their exchanges may be of a higher caliber even while in little space. They may have more specific rules in regards to language use and proper pronunciation. There may be a desire to highlight the intelligence in little space, or big space, in the means of creativity. Intelligence doesn't just have to do with book smarts or factual information. Intelligence can be seen in creativity and the arts. Instead of coloring, maybe the little would prefer to paint, but not in a "little" way, or play an instrument, etc. Anything that puts them in that head space.

 

Am I saying Sapiophiles are more intelligent or their way of interacting is the most elegant venue? No, not at all. But as a Sapiophile myself, I know I require a Daddy who can surpass me in intellect and wit. Why? Otherwise I feel the dynamic is undesirable in so much that I don't feel challenged. But in the same breath, I want to be with a Daddy I can challenge as well, and not just by being a brat. I need that exchange or the dynamic will grow tedious and stale for me. I need the mind as much as I need the mannerisms of a Daddy. Actually, I, personally, need the mind more. So I fully believe the two can easily be mingled together.

 

Also I don't see how the two would have to be separate, but rather they would just need a different fusion for both sides to be happy. And lets not forget, we should never be trying to create stereotypes about any type of dynamic. So just because an interaction may be vastly different (Daddy corrects my speech and grammar instead of my pouty faces and grabby hands) doesn't mean it is wrong. It simply means the person, in this case the Sapiophile, must seek to find their correct counterpart. Which is arguably what everyone should be doing.

 

But this is all just my opinion based off of what I search for. Which means, it works for me. And what may work for one person, or a bunch of people, won't necessarily work for someone else...

[Guest little_primal_girl]

I'm intelligent, and I'm highly attracted to smart men. I think the two go together very well.

[DaddyCue109]

I can tell you that the opposite Affects me.

 

If a partner is genuinely "un-smart" I just can't find attraction.

 

If my little ever made a comment putting herself down I immediately corrected her.

[Guest Polysexual369]

Personally, I feel it's part of the draw to DD/lg. Being guided by someone wise and genuinely intelligent is a huge turn on for me.  Many littles are smart people and to say otherwise would be insulting... Behaving like a child on occasion doesn't remove someones mind or the knowledge it contains. It just serves as a temporary escape or outlet. I believe being a little involves a lot of natural creativity as well which is another type of intelligence people could be attracted to. Sapiosexuality and the Cg/l dynamic aren't diametrically opposed at all. I think they go hand in hand. That's just my interpretation.

 

Well said, Little_Galaxy, I would imagine that any woman (or man) in a relationship of this dynamic expects the same.  You also gave me a good clue into the thought process from someone in your perspective.

 

I'm new to this concept, and am just exploring my options here, but for what it's worth, I would imagine that what someone is attracted to in a person doesn't change depending on the roles and relationship dynamic.

 

Good topic!

[Guest ZenDD]

"As Sapiosexuals interact, I don't think there is a single dynamic they are excluded from. But rather, it may just take a different twist on things. Their exchanges may be of a higher caliber even while in little space. They may have more specific rules in regards to language use and proper pronunciation. There may be a desire to highlight the intelligence in little space, or big space, in the means of creativity. Intelligence doesn't just have to do with book smarts or factual information. Intelligence can be seen in creativity and the arts. Instead of coloring, maybe the little would prefer to paint, but not in a "little" way, or play an instrument, etc. Anything that puts them in that head space."

 

"... lets not forget, we should never be trying to create stereotypes about any type of dynamic. So just because an interaction may be vastly different (Daddy corrects my speech and grammar instead of my pouty faces and grabby hands) doesn't mean it is wrong. It simply means the person, in this case the Sapiophile, must seek to find their correct counterpart."

 

As some have stated here, the original post implies that intelligence is somehow void, or at least lacking or diminished, within the nature of a CG/l dynamic. In actuality, the two are of no direct relation other than they both occur within the brain. While they both grow on trees, an apple is not an orange. Intrinsically, intelligence doesn't ever go away with any activity one takes part in, and so to indicate a possible conflict between intelligence and participation in CG/l is to imply that to incorporate it into one's life is, in and of itself, a generally unintelligent choice or is a choice to engage in something unintelligent. While certainly subjective, I think that could be a problematic hypothesis.

 

But I think the greater issue within the issue is the idea of the concept of sapiosexuality itself. The term is a neologism, and the idea of it is so subjective and relative that it holds no real distinction. To me, the concept has the danger of appearing elitist. Here's why: because nearly everyone is attracted to intelligence. In fact, one would find it difficult to find a person who is actually sexually attracted to a lack of it. Generally, those who seek someone who they perceive as lacking in intelligence are not doing so because that is what they are sexually attracted to, they do so because of their perception that such a person would be easy to manipulate. More crudely worded, they aren't looking for a "dummy" because they think it's hot, they look for a "dummy" because they think it'll be easier to get what they want from them. Therefore, most everyone is sapiosexual and hence the distinction is moot, and can easily be interpreted as a form of condescension.

 

The problem is that what constitutes intelligence is in the eye, or mind, actually, of the beholder. The quote above mentions the importance of not trying to create stereotypes, of which I completely agree with. However, I respectfully would note that the quote actually does some stereotyping of its own, utilizing things like "language use", "pronunciation", "speech", and "grammar", as indications of intelligence. Other than grammar, these things are actually culturally based, and not necessarily measures of "intelligence." Sure, the implementation of grammatic rules and structure can indicate some intelligence, i'll concede that. But someone might excel with regards to grammar, and not have high mathematical skills. That wouldn't necessarily make them more or less intelligent. By the same token someone could have exceedingly high mathematical skills and find grammatical issues challenging, and again, that wouldn't be a direct indication of intelligence. Intelligence is determined by a far more broad spectrum of mental tools and resourcefulness involving skills of critical thinking that very often supercede the "educational" determinations.

 

In the quote above, "creativity" is also used as a determining factor of intelligence. And while generally true, the term is also weighed down by the same subjectivity. Not all very highly, technically skilled painters or musicians are necessarily creative, just as some very creative painters or musicians are not highly, technically skilled. How one would determine which is the more "intelligent" would find it a difficult task with vague and very relative determinations. So, respectfully, yes, we should be careful of not generalizing and stereotyping any relationship dynamic, just as we should be careful of not doing so with many concepts, such as intelligence.

 

But returning to the original post's question; of course their is no diammetrical opposition between a sexual attraction to intelligence and the CG/l dynamic. The scope of intelligence within the dynamic is determined by that of its participants, not the dynamic itself. 

Edited November 4, 2016 by ZenDD

[MisterJ]

As some have stated here, the original post implies that intelligence is somehow void, or at least lacking or diminished, within the nature of a CG/l dynamic. In actuality, the two are of no direct relation other than they both occur within the brain. While they both grow on trees, an apple is not an orange. Intrinsically, intelligence doesn't ever go away with any activity one takes part in, and so to indicate a possible conflict between intelligence and participation in CG/l is to imply that to incorporate it into one's life is, in and of itself, a generally unintelligent choice or is a choice to engage in something unintelligent. While certainly subjective, I think that could be a problematic hypothesis.

 

But I think the greater issue within the issue is the idea of the concept of sapiosexuality itself. The term is a neologism, and the idea of it is so subjective and relative that it holds no real distinction. To me, the concept has the danger of appearing elitist. Here's why: because nearly everyone is attracted to intelligence. In fact, one would find it difficult to find a person who is actually sexually attracted to a lack of it. Generally, those who seek someone who they perceive as lacking in intelligence are not doing so because that is what they are sexually attracted to, they do so because of their perception that such a person would be easy to manipulate. More crudely worded, they aren't looking for a "dummy" because they think it's hot, they look for a "dummy" because they think it'll be easier to get what they want from them. Therefore, most everyone is sapiosexual and hence the distinction is moot, and can easily be interpreted as a form of condescension.

 

The problem is that what constitutes intelligence is in the eye, or mind, actually, of the beholder. The quote above mentions the importance of not trying to create stereotypes, of which I completely agree with. However, I respectfully would note that the quote actually does some stereotyping of its own, utilizing things like "language use", "pronunciation", "speech", and "grammar", as indications of intelligence. Other than grammar, these things are actually culturally based, and not necessarily measures of "intelligence." Sure, the implementation of grammatic rules and structure can indicate some intelligence, i'll concede that. But someone might excel with regards to grammar, and not have high mathematical skills. That wouldn't necessarily make them more or less intelligent. By the same token someone could have exceedingly high mathematical skills and find grammatical issues challenging, and again, that wouldn't be a direct indication of intelligence. Intelligence is determined by a far more broad spectrum of mental tools and resourcefulness involving skills of critical thinking that very often supercede the "educational" determinations.

 

In the quote above, "creativity" is also used as a determining factor of intelligence. And while generally true, the term is also weighed down by the same subjectivity. Not all very highly, technically skilled painters or musicians are necessarily creative, just as some very creative painters or musicians are not highly, technically skilled. How one would determine which is the more "intelligent" would find it a difficult task with vague and very relative determinations. So, respectfully, yes, we should be careful of not generalizing and stereotyping any relationship dynamic, just as we should be careful of not doing so with many concepts, such as intelligence.

 

But returning to the original post's question; of course their is no diammetrical opposition between a sexual attraction to intelligence and the CG/l dynamic. The scope of intelligence within the dynamic is determined by that of its participants, not the dynamic itself. 

 

I have many varied responses to this post. I think the following represents my most diplomatic and well weighted understanding, and will be the most conducive to furthering an amicable discussion. This is simply what works for me, as a man who is proverbially stepping along the sudden path, or middle path that is Eastern Theology seen through a Western Philosophical lens. Or, as you would well know... Zen.

 

I believe that you're right in saying that they both occur within the brain, but only because everything occurs in the brain. Everything we experience in this reality is simply stimulus processed through five senses and interpreted by neurons that fire sporadically in our heads.

 

Language is the vessel through which we communicate our understanding of the symbols or tactile objects that exist within our physical reality. We label these objects or symbols, and we constantly measure them; we compare them with other things, against ourselves, against our understanding of the ego... Whatever it may be...

 

What we tend to forget, unfortunately, is that these words are just an interpretation of an abstraction built upon an understanding of an abstraction. Everything is different for everyone, yet we are all born, we are all blessed or cursed with sentience, we all come to some sort of understanding of our existence, and we all die.

 

Every tree was once a sapling. Every word was once a neologism. Every concept is ultimately subjective. These facts neither affirm nor negate the fact that a word is a word, a tree is a tree, and that depending on how you're looking at "it," everything can be seen differently.

 

Life is a game, and we're playing with one another. Maybe I'm wrong. Isn't that awesome?

 

Still... I believe that one can argue that time is a figment, pain is an illusion, and lust is desire dancing in a primal mask. While all analogies are expressed through language, not all ring true - particularly when it comes to certain topics. If the brain is a tree, then it produces every fruit - not just apples and oranges.

 

By that standard, which I recognise is simply my perspective, it stands to reason that the relevance of sapiosexuality within any dynamic, or between any two people, is a matter of relative perspective.

 

Logically speaking, it is not within anyone's right to say that any concept is valid or invalid, or if it is present or absent. Recognising the presence of anything in life is, at the end of the day, entirely up to the individual, or individuals, in question.

 

I believe that this is not a discussion. For me, this is a fact that arises when one does his or her best to wrangle with their unique, snowflake understanding of how they will choose to interpret their own reality. 

 

Everything is relative. In saying so, I fully embrace the fact that my perspective will be anywhere from slightly to completely different from other people's. But... how boring would existence be if we all saw everything in exactly the same way?

 

Welcome to the human race.

Edited November 5, 2016 by MisterJ

[Little Illy]

Before I start this, I want to make it known - Everything I argue is in good nature and I am thrilled to see such a deep discussion on the thread. More so I am overjoyed to see different viewpoints on this, specific, topic because it allows for such a wonderful back and forth!

 

As some have stated here, the original post implies that intelligence is somehow void, or at least lacking or diminished, within the nature of a CG/l dynamic. In actuality, the two are of no direct relation other than they both occur within the brain. While they both grow on trees, an apple is not an orange. Intrinsically, intelligence doesn't ever go away with any activity one takes part in, and so to indicate a possible conflict between intelligence and participation in CG/l is to imply that to incorporate it into one's life is, in and of itself, a generally unintelligent choice or is a choice to engage in something unintelligent. While certainly subjective, I think that could be a problematic hypothesis.

 

But I think the greater issue within the issue is the idea of the concept of sapiosexuality itself. The term is a neologism, and the idea of it is so subjective and relative that it holds no real distinction. To me, the concept has the danger of appearing elitist. Here's why: because nearly everyone is attracted to intelligence. In fact, one would find it difficult to find a person who is actually sexually attracted to a lack of it. Generally, those who seek someone who they perceive as lacking in intelligence are not doing so because that is what they are sexually attracted to, they do so because of their perception that such a person would be easy to manipulate. More crudely worded, they aren't looking for a "dummy" because they think it's hot, they look for a "dummy" because they think it'll be easier to get what they want from them. Therefore, most everyone is sapiosexual and hence the distinction is moot, and can easily be interpreted as a form of condescension.

 

I don’t think the “greater issue within the issue” here is sapiosexuality, at least not in the way I can see. With the logic you have put forth you can easily apply that to any kink, any fetish, any attraction… actually, just anything. And to try to apply it here, and cast this attraction as a neologism, is astutely incorrect (in my opinion). What is being applied is a very radical sense of the basic definition of the term. Yes, everyone is attracted to some form of intelligence. But that is just the case with everything else; physical attraction (shapes, sizes, colors, dimensions), voice, skills, mannerisms, careers, hobbies and so much more are always sought after, even in the most subtle of ways. But to paint with such broad strokes here, in regards to intelligence, is fairly closed minded considering the topic at hand. Especially to draw it down to “condescension.” That in of itself implies that anyone who identifies with sapiosexuality is therefore condescending towards those they don’t find attractive. Or worse, they are condescending in their very nature due to what they believe is attractive. At least that is how it comes off. Which, sure, there are those like that. But you see that in homophobes, feminazis, misogynists and so on. We should never stereotype, yet here we essentially have been presented one.

 

Like any other title, role, or identity, you can’t ever say a “true” [role] is this or that. And, I think, those who have this affinity to typecast the sapiosexual as an elitist are typically those who see the extreme; the pedantic intellect who look down their nose to anyone beneath their “station.” But in actuality, the sapiosexual can be as broad as one who is attracted to intelligence in general or it can be as narrow as someone who is attracted to someone fluent in physics or philosophy. To each their own, as they say. But even if they are this, offensive and arrogant type, so what? That is their reality and it is their attraction. Which makes it neither right nor wrong.

 

 

The problem is that what constitutes intelligence is in the eye, or mind, actually, of the beholder. The quote above mentions the importance of not trying to create stereotypes, of which I completely agree with. However, I respectfully would note that the quote actually does some stereotyping of its own, utilizing things like "language use", "pronunciation", "speech", and "grammar", as indications of intelligence. Other than grammar, these things are actually culturally based, and not necessarily measures of "intelligence." Sure, the implementation of grammatic rules and structure can indicate some intelligence, i'll concede that. But someone might excel with regards to grammar, and not have high mathematical skills. That wouldn't necessarily make them more or less intelligent. By the same token someone could have exceedingly high mathematical skills and find grammatical issues challenging, and again, that wouldn't be a direct indication of intelligence. Intelligence is determined by a far more broad spectrum of mental tools and resourcefulness involving skills of critical thinking that very often supercede the "educational" determinations.

 

In reference to the interpretation of my original response; yes, I posted about grammar and language. My response was vague and general for a reason. But I shall expand upon it, lest I offend someone, because that is sincerely not my goal. Because a sapiosexual can fall along any levels of the spectrum, I will use myself as an example since it is the most sincerest one I can present: I used language as an indication of intelligence and I did so it the most basic form - comprehension. As you can well see in all of my posts, I am not the top linguist by any stretch of the imagination. But I utilized this concept because, for most, well crafted literature is a sign of intelligence. But for myself, language speaks to a powerful mind in the ways it is used, suppressed and the context in which it sits upon. To be able to convey certain concepts in enlightened ways, to have a stopping power with words, to elicit higher thought process with language, and so much more is where I see intelligence. Again - this is MY example of myself and what I look for. Therefore, for me, it can’t be seen as anything else.  

 

But to take it out of my own scope of reality - you cannot argue that these elements do not have a foothold in intelligence, regardless of the culture they are rooted in. Language, and every single aspect it is attributed with, has always been seen as a form of intelligence. And that is worldwide. Now, lack of “sophisticated” language does not mean there is a lack of intelligence - for this instance, it is a specific, one-way street. And this has been evident throughout the ages. If it wasn’t the case, we wouldn’t still have literature courses lecturing over Shakespeare, Aristotle, Plato, Twain or any number of thinkers and writers. They have a way with language that is seen beyond the basic words and creates as thought process that requires a deeper analysis. If this wasn’t the case we would be giving our third graders Othello instead of college students (yes, ignore the sexual nature of the play and focus on the language). To negate this fact is a very narrow path to take.

 

 

In the quote above, "creativity" is also used as a determining factor of intelligence. And while generally true, the term is also weighed down by the same subjectivity. Not all very highly, technically skilled painters or musicians are necessarily creative, just as some very creative painters or musicians are not highly, technically skilled. How one would determine which is the more "intelligent" would find it a difficult task with vague and very relative determinations. So, respectfully, yes, we should be careful of not generalizing and stereotyping any relationship dynamic, just as we should be careful of not doing so with many concepts, such as intelligence.

 

 

I think the entire, above, statement is paradoxical. Let us not deviate from the definition of the term here; intelligence is defined as “the ability to acquire and apply knowledge and skills.” What needs to be focused on is the acquisition. In light of the technical definition, both sides of the stroke are intelligent, regardless of their creativity or skill. If they have a high level of one, but not the other, they are still intelligent. We should not try to measure the level of intelligence, and for this discussion, should just acknowledge that they are intellectual in their own path. Because they both are elevated by having this knowledge, if it is technical or mental, it doesn’t matter. It is present and they are capable of understanding it. And, respectfully, to assume anything other would to be generalizing in of itself.

 

In essence, over analyzing the concept of intelligence has, overall, defeated the purpose entirely. There is a thing of too much scrutiny and I think it has just happened (IN MY OPINION - I do not claim that as a fact, just a respectful dissent). Even though something can be broken down to the metaphorical molecular level doesn’t mean it should. Because then it loses its meaning altogether.

 

But I will say that I love reading the difference of opinions and love the fact it causes me to think deeper about something, even if I disagree.

 

“It is a mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain an idea without accepting it." - Aristotle

[Guest ZenDD]

"I believe that you're right in saying that they both occur within the brain, but only because everything occurs in the brain. Everything we experience in this reality is simply stimulus processed through five senses and interpreted by neurons that fire sporadically in our heads."

 

"Every concept is ultimately subjective. These facts neither affirm nor negate the fact that a word is a word, a tree is a tree, and that depending on how you're looking at "it," everything can be seen differently."

 

"If the brain is a tree, then it produces every fruit - not just apples and oranges."

 

"By that standard, which I recognise is simply my perspective, it stands to reason that the relevance of sapiosexuality within any dynamic, or between any two people, is a matter of relative perspective."

 

"Logically speaking, it is not within anyone's right to say that any concept is valid or invalid, or if it is present or absent. Recognising the presence of anything in life is, at the end of the day, entirely up to the individual, or individuals, in question."

 

My sincere thanks for the discussion. Before I address the ideas you've addressed, I want to respect the original poster and be sure that this discussion stays within the topic: sapiosexuality in relation to the CG/l dynamic. I do appreciate what you've written, agree with it, and I understand the peripheral relationships you've highlighted between the ideas i've discussed regarding the original question. And I'll gladly discuss the virtues of the aggregates that make up our existence and/or perception of reality, but it's important for us to stay focused on the issue at hand lest we drift into a different discussion entirely. 

 

Within a discussion, for the sake of productivity, there should be perimeters that keep us from blowing all the elements of it into the ether. We have to find a common denominator in which to hold a conversation. When looking for a wooden dinner table for one's home, there has to be a point at which parties can agree that a table is made out of wood, and not venture into the discussion of what actually constitutes wood. Otherwise, one might never find a place to set their plate upon. Let's find a wooden table, and only debate what shape would be most suitable for our needs.

 

Of course everything occurs within the brain, hence my comment that sapiosexuality and the CG/l dynamic "are of no direct relation other than they both occur within the brain."  My point, if it wasn't made clear, is that not everything that comes from the same source becomes a comparable manifestation. Yes, the brain/tree produces all fruit, but not every fruit is edible, and therefore are not all comparable to one another and consequently don't compete...as a food source, anyway. I don't think that sexual attraction to intelligence and participation in a CG/l dynamic are mutually exclusive. This does not mean that sapiosexuality has no "relevance" to the CG/l dynamic, only that I don't believe one negates the other, as the original post questioned.

 

It may not be within anyone's "right" to say that any concept is valid or invalid to a society-at-large, but it is most definitely within someone's right to determine if it is valid to them. This is why my argument regarding the concept of sapiosexuality began with the words "To me, the concept has the danger of appearing elitist."  In fact, I don't question the validity of the concept itself at all. What I question is the reasoning behind the usage of the concept. I pose that, "to me", the concept is often used for a different purpose other than for what it's defined as being. I actually believe that, more often than not, the concept, or at very least the word sapiosexual, is used as a descriptor of the user's own pride in their self-perceived and self-interpreted level of intelligence, as opposed to what they are actually sexually attracted to. Obviously, not everyone identifying as sapiosexual utilizes the word/concept as "code", as I've suggested. But in my own experience, I have found this to be an extremely common practice.

 

Thanks, again!

[Guest ZenDD]

Before I start this, I want to make it known - Everything I argue is in good nature and I am thrilled to see such a deep discussion on the thread. More so I am overjoyed to see different viewpoints on this, specific, topic because it allows for such a wonderful back and forth!

 

I always enjoy discussion with you, Bree. Thanks for the response. I too, am respectfully debating and even "razzing" in good nature. I want to be sure, however, that I don't wander too much, and that I stay within the relative confines of the original poster's question.

 

You've written much here, and nearly exclusively on the definition and/or what constitutes intelligence. So it is not without a bit of comical irony that you would say, "There is a thing of too much scrutiny and I think it has just happened..." , because it may have just happened again. As you've stated, "Even though something can be broken down to the metaphorical molecular level doesn’t mean it should. Because then it loses its meaning altogether." I agree, but I hardly think I've dug very deeply, at least not as deeply as you and others may have. Essentially, I agree with everything you've said regarding my comment, but as I've noted with another poster, while I may have dug into the subjective determinations of intelligence, I did so with the original poster's question in mind regarding the use of language and it's elements within a CG/l dynamic, and not as an overall descriptor of the use of language within humanity-at-large. It's possible I didn't succeed in making that distinction. Maybe I've made my points more clearly in another response I've posted above, before this one. 

 

In that post, I reiterate the reasons why I believe that sapiosexuality and CG/l dynamics are not mutually exclusive, which is what this post is about. The "issue within the issue" I discuss, is the general use, not the validity of the existence, of the proof of concept. The issue of defining the attributes of intelligence, within the CG/l dynamic, is therefore discussed, with regards to the original posters use of the term sapiosexuality.

 

To be sure, I'm not typecasting sapiosexuality, I am stating my direct experience with the typecast that was developed long before my description. Just as you've mentioned that describing a perspective in the most sincere way can only be from one's own experience, I am doing the same. I have had interactions with sapiosexual self-identifiers and its "community", if you will, for about a decade. Through discussions of my own attractions, I have very often been described as sapiosexual by others who use the term to describe themselves. But the fact is that I have found a very common and pervasive use of the term/concept as "code" as an attempt to humbly describe oneself as highly intelligent as opposed to utilization of the term/concept to describe what they are actually sexually attracted to.

 

This might be a small distinction to some, but semantics are extremely important to me. And I find this usage deceptive, and therefore not humble at all. This doesn't invalidate the concept in-and-of-itself, but in my experience it has become the predominant culture of it. Maybe you haven't run into that yet, and I'm glad you haven't. Hopefully, you never will. I know I'm not the only person who feels as I do, much has been written describing similar viewpoints. A simple google search for "sapiosexual elitism", for example, can verify some of that.

 

I don't believe I painted "intelligence" with broad strokes, I was actually saying in my original response that I believe you were; with a roller, maybe. I believe another poster who I responded to was painting it with an eyelash. I was attempting to use a brush that was in the middle. Maybe I didn't succeed, but that was my attempt (all of these analogies and metaphors are getting hilarious, right?). I also was not describing the attributes of intelligence, or the value of it, as condescending, I was describing the unfortunately common sapiosexual culture's usage of the "code" as condescension.

Again, more on that in my other response above.

 

I'd be glad to discuss any of this with you anytime, but I don't want to hijack and divert too far from the original poster's topic. As always, thanks for the discussion!

Edited November 5, 2016 by ZenDD

[Guest DavidAlan]

Um,a lot of stuff to read on this thread. Intelligence,wit,and a touch of sarcasm would be indispensable in a relationship!

[Bbw_Bbg_Jenni]

Im not gonna sit here n pick apart any of the previous comments. Simply put, i find intelligence extremely attractive and know that my intelligence is attractive to others. I have a vast and many faceted personality. Two of those facets just happen to be my littles, Babygirl and Princess(i know im different in that i have two littles, but the variations in my littlespace warrant it(My Babygirl is the fully innocent child, whereas my Princess is my innocent, yet sexually curious teen)). Littlespace is an outlet, an escape from the stress and responsibilities of my life. Its soothing mentally and emotionally. To imply that littles are less intelligent is grossly unfair and quite frankly wrong. It takes great strenth of mind to transition back n forth between, technically, different personalities. Some prefer to show their intelligence in how they speak as littles, whereas others let their littles have free reign in their speech. It doesnt mean either is more intelligent than the other. Its simply personal choice, n maybe a touch of OCD sometimes. Don't belittle our littles.