You Only Like Me for My Brain

Alexandria Montgomery Defends Sapiosexuality

You Only Like Me for My Brain

Alexandria Montgomery, Staff Writer

SAPIOSEXUAL – one who is sexually attracted to the mind of another, or the intelligence in another.

Many of you may be thinking, “…huh? That’s not possible.” Or, perhaps, many of you may be thinking, ‘That’s so me. It all makes sense now.” But, judging from the passionately written posts on various blogging platforms, there may be a third group of you here at Northmont who find themselves running off a tangent and the mere mention of sapiosexuality:

Sapiosexuality is ableist, racist, sexist bull crap! Only pseudo intellectuals identify as sapio!

Well, if that is your stance on sapiosexuality, know you are not alone in your disdain for this sexuality:

_20150112_114247 _20150112_114324


I first heard of sapiosexuality sometime over the summer. I was scrolling down my instagram feed, and I came across this photo, a quote by Shahir Zag:


The Instagram user (I’ve long since forgotten who) captioned the photo as ‘sapiosexual.’ After a quick Google search, I learned sapiosexual was a neologistic term for one who is sexually attracted to the mind (neologistic refers to a recently constructed word). It wasn’t until recently, however, that I learned of the widespread dislike for sapiosexuality. The backlash, it seems, proliferated as quickly as the term itself. There seems to be four main arguments against sapiosexuality:


Those who make this argument claim that sapiosexuality is ableist, because those with disabilities – whether of the mind or body – are deemed to be less intelligent. They claim sapiosexuality is racist, because blacks and hispanics are stereotypically thought to be less intelligent than whites and asians. They claim sapiosexuality is sexist because men are stereotypically thought to be considerably more intelligent than women. Ableism, as with racism, sexism, and any other oppressive -ism is systematic. While it stems from prejudice and becomes problematic when the prejudice is used to justify discriminatory actions, it only becomes ableist / racist / sexist when discriminatory behaviors are normalized. Ableism, racism, and sexism are systematic forms of oppression. Systematic oppression is the sum of this fairly simple equation:




Well, a sexuality is in no way oppressive.


Pretentious? For some, yes. But for pseudo-intellectuals? Not at all. By professing your attraction to intelligence, you are not saying: “I am the smartest person on Earth! I only associate with people who read existential literature… like the guy who wrote 1994.” (joke…). That is definitely a pseudo-intellectual. But to say you are attracted to someone who has a complex cranium? You are not feigning a false intellect. You are craving the presence of someone else’s intellect.


 Anti-sapiosexuals (is it ever that serious?) frequently raise the argument that it cannot be a real sexuality, as you cannot be physically attracted to something non-physical. Well, false. Human sexuality is defined here as “ the constitution of an individual in relation to sexual attitudes or activity. This is a broad concept that includes aspects of the physical, psychological, social, emotional, and spiritual makeup of an individual. It is not limited to the physical or biological reproductive elements and behavior, but encompasses the manner in which individuals use their own roles, relationships, values,customs, and gender.” Sexuality is psychological, social, emotional, and spiritual just as much as it is physical. That being said, you can be psychologically, socially, emotionally, and spiritually attracted to someone. Sexuality, as with most things in this life, transcends the physical world and permeates areas of our beings we, in futility, try to name.

So, Northmont, what do YOU think of sapiosexuality?