I relate to a lot of what you said.

For over a decade, my relationships were with women. I would tell them that I was bi, but I did the committed monogamy thing because that's what's expected in "proper" society.

I love the relative ease that being with another guy entails, physically and otherwise. There's just far less guesswork and likelihood for conflict.

I haven't been in a relationship with a man, however, so my experience is limited. I wonder if other bi guys find it easier being with men rather than women.

I agree with most of what you said except for Sapiosexuals - they are attracted by a person's mind.

Literally attracted by who the person is - far more than by appearance.

So much so that gender and sex roles might be disregarded because the person's mind is that attractive to them.

There are a ton of us btw.

@RavenCT So how about 'fiscosexual': attracted to wealthy people? How about 'tallblondeswithbigbreastssexual'? At what point do we draw a line between sexuality and simple preference?

@PalacinkyPDX Interesting origins if that's the case. I can only go by how I've seen it used, and typically it's been trans gatekeepers who've wanted to exclude 'lower forms' of trans, that they don't feel should qualify as 'truly trans.'

@NicoleCadmium I found it interesting to actually be in a group. So I kind of enjoy it.
But it's not necessary to my well being to be named as such.

For some groups? It might well be important. At least in a "general understanding fashion" or a "finding other members of the same group" manner.

I like labels when they are used to help and not hurt. In this case I think sapiosexuals go "Hey! That's what I am too!" - and it helps - it is probably as clarifying as someone saying they are bi. It's a very powerful statement of who you identify as.

We could have hundreds of sub groups and if it's so that people can identify themselves for potential partners - it's not necessarily a bad thing.

I doubt I'll ever know all of them - and yes it can become very silly - but silly is in the eye of the beholder here. If you are actually a member of the group? It's not so silly.

@RavenCT I don't think anyone's denying the legitimacy of 'interest in intelligence' as a preference in a sexual partner. For me, it's more a matter of where you draw the line on what qualifies as a true sexuality and warrants the 'sexual' suffix. Preferably somewhere before we end up with iphoneusersexual and BMWdriversexual. I would define sexuality as a specific form of sexual preference that is based on sex and/or gender, and no other factors. Anything beyond that is a preference, but not a true sexuality. If someone attempts to frame it as a sexuality, then it's a pseudo-sexuality.

It's usually bisexuals and pansexuals who do this, perhaps as a reaction to the kind of prejudice that says that not having an exclusive preference for one sex or gender over another means you have no standards and will 'sleep with anything.' You never seem to get gay men declaring themselves bearsexual or twinksexual, even if they have an exclusive preference for that kind of partner.

@NicoleCadmium I think it boils down to "useful in finding a like minded partner to play with". Like all terminology I don't see everyone who isn't involved using it. Or even learning it - but a basic grasp of terms isn't a bad thing.

For those participating? It's useful to know how someone defines themself.

Sometimes I'd have trouble finding an orange at the grocers if it weren't labeled somewhere.?

@RavenCT I just wish people would stop using the 'sexual' suffix for things that are no more sexualities than a preference for blonde hair.

The true sexualities (in alphabetical order) are asexual, bisexual, heterosexual and homosexual (with a special mention of androsexual and gyno/gynesexual as a means of expressing homo/hetero without reference to the interested party's sex.) I will accept that gender interest falls under the broader definition of sexuality that society commonly uses, hence gay/pan/straight. But even then, two of those don't use the 'sexual' suffix (which is why I prefer to refer to 'pan' rather than 'pansexual' ) because they are based on gender interest rather than sex interest.

Apparently, 'sapiosexuality' was invented by a blogger a few years ago, and gained traction only because OkCupid chose to list it as one of their sexuality options.

This article is harsher than I'd like, but I struggle to disagree with it... [thedailybeast.com]

@NicoleCadmium I never considered the word to be cloned from Bisexual or any other term.

It's simply a descriptor like many others. Just as there are bears and unicorns in the world. If people are okay using terms to find each other - than they use them.

Language is odd in that it can seem like infringement on another territory simply by sharing "sexual" as a descriptor.

I never considered Sapiosexuals to be any sort of minority. Simply a group looking for others like them - like many others. Not saying we need representation under the Rainbow Flag or anything.

We do need descriptors. That is pretty much how the dating world works.
Otherwise we'd blunder around more than we do already.

Yes it's as silly as any of the other descriptors that are possible - however it is a huge slice of information about how you relate to other people. I can't dismiss it out of hand. It's definitely a key bit of information to know about someone.

I don't think I've ever related any other way in a relationship. It's probably a good thing to know that- for both myself and other people.

@RavenCT I too have a preference for people who aren't as dumb as a box of rocks. I'm not one for intellectual snobbery, but I've dated the kind of guy where the sex was good but the social side was wholly unfulfilling because the kinds of things that interested me went right over his head. It definitely wasn't enough.

If anything, I think that makes me sapioromantic rather than sapiosexual. While intelligence might be part of the whole package that attracts me to someone, and I might have no sexual interest in someone I'm not attracted to, the link is indirect. Being not quite bright enough certainly isn't the same deal breaker that the same genitals are for a heterosexual or different ones are for a homosexual. It's a romantic/attraction/relationship consideration rather than a directly sexual one, hence it doesn't warrant the 'sexual' suffix IMO.

@PalacinkyPDX It is not that I am "uncomfortable" with labels. I think they are stupid. As long as we, society, accept such petty bullshit it will continue. I am also old enough and from a part of the country where being anything but heterosexual and christian was hazardous to your health. However, the complexity of it really is pettiness. You may not like that statement but in the grand scheme of things its all petty. I fight not for a label but for a journey. The human journey should simplify not get more complicated. We should be learning to be more harmonious not segregated by labels of our own making. This labeling has led to the stress and collapse of the gay community in the area I live. Once is was simple and we had a great respect for eachother. We had clubs, entertainment venues, and many promising business that catered to gay clientel. Then some 20 years ago out of the blue pride stopped being Gay pride. It became segregated into Latino gay pride then balck gay pride then the Identities started spewing out and suddenly everyone was offended by everything and people nolonger could talk or even get together without one group throwing a temper tantrum about a misunderstanding or miscommunication. The clubs largely disappeared the once bustling enterprises went to the way sides as more and more people under the rainbow flag became so compartmentalized that it was fruitless to even try to be a business. I quit attending pride events. I was blessed out for attending a "black pride" event just because ai was not black. I was made to feel unwelcome at a lesbian bar that I once hung out at because I was a male. This is what all that labeling does. It makes people forget that we are all in this world together. We are all special. It does not help keep us together.

@PalacinkyPDX bwahahaha, we all used to do Karaoke there. It was a blast. A pub kind of atmosphere. They knew I was gay. Have known the owners for 20 years. The whole thing is petty. You think that gender makes feelings somehow stronger. It does not. Generally speaking it is more socially acceptable for women to like women than men to like men. I have been beaten, stabbed, and dragged behind a truck for being gay. No less the mountain of stares and insults hurled my way from small minded people mainly the christian soldiers who are busy doing the lords work. Me being kicked out of the lesbian bar was not because I "stare" or they did not know I was gay. It was because the community has become so segregated that they wanted a 100% lesbian clientel. I am sad to say that the place closed. I spoke with Chrissa the owner a little while back and she said it was miserable at the end. But they could nolonger make the bills and overhead was too high. She laments on their decision to become exclusive. But a little too late. Anyways, have a good afternoon. As for me I am enjoying a few day without rain finally.