u/BanterHM

View Poll

View Poll

I got a list of general dimensions that women who are sexually attracted to men might use to evaluate them. (This is mostly generated my AI, so there's no source and the definitions can probably be fudged a little)

I'm curious how women feel sapiosexuality might sort to prioritize in such a list?

-Physical Attractiveness & Genetic Fitness: maybe self-explanitory.

-Health, Vitality, and Scent: energy levels, clear skin, immune system eval.

-Logistical Proximity and Convenience: If the partner lives close, is easy to access.

-Physical Safety and Behavioral Green Flags: low predatory behaviors, social proof & vouching for him, discretion in the sense of doesn't "kiss and tell".

-Humor, Wittiness, and High Intelligence*: Hard-to-fake indicator of healthy brain, strong problem-solving genetics, and tension diffuser.

-Sexual Chemistry and Behavioral Dominance: social confidence and dominance, nonverbal cues, sexual experience/attentiveness/confidence

-Immediate Resource Availability: career stability, emotional investment, willingness to share wealth.

-Sexual Reputation and Pre-Selection: Pre-selection by other attractive women, the "safe bet" of a man who has already been vetted as attractive and desirable.

*Naturally this should be where sapiosexuality fits, but it seems uncreative and tautological to stop there.

The assumption is that women evaluating men don't choose between these items, instead they do calculations (gut-check, mental, etc.) across all of them. So for clarity, I'm more curious where sapiosexuality might tip the scales for any of those.

Men with anecdotal or observational input are of course welcome.

Sapiosexuality is presumably an attraction toward the way that someone thinks. With that said, does anyone else get turned off by someone demonstrating a line of thought frought with fallacies and/or biases?

At the risk of being pedantic, one of the common mistakes I hear about fallacies in particular is that employing one makes the fallacious claim false-- which isn't true, it's actually not up for logical evaluation (which is refencered in the fallacy-fallacy).

In some sense, that inability to evaluate seems to give people license to keep yapping and not saying anything at all of value. So looping back to a sapiosexual lens, it blunts my ability to engage enjoyably with either the conversation, or the person.

(This is all pretty much completely nullified in the realm of art, for example, where building the emotional lexicon is sort of the broader goal. I just don't want anyone thinking I'm asking about or advocating some absolutist mission to nitpick.)

Anyone else find this?

I know a multisyllabic word can get some people hot, but does anyone go a big softie when they hear jargon standing in as a placeholder for real thought?

You know what I mean by jargon-- language that has a specialized (maybe meant as "technical"), which I'm sort of extending here to cover people who want to just seem like or get credit for being in the know, but really they're just parroting words they think are slick. It may as well be like casting a magic spell.

Albert Einstein is attributed to saying, "If you can't explain it to a six-year-old, you don't understand it well enough." If a person just knows the jargon and doesn't know how to connect the concept for a six-year-old (accurately, for the child), do you sense it? Do you get turned off?

I could start rattling off examples, but I'm not going to wrap everyone into my TED talk, lol.