What It Means to Be Turned On by Intelligence

Source: Taryn Elliott / Pexels

The term sapiosexual has been in circulation for at least 10 years now, and is taken to mean something along the lines of “an individual who finds high levels of intelligence the most sexually attractive trait.”[*] As somebody who identifies as sapiosexual, I have been a little disheartened to see an absence of sapiosexuality research in the behavioral sciences, and somewhat-encouraged-but-ultimately-disappointed in the research by Gignac and his team at the University of Western Australia.[†] Gignac gained some notoriety for designing the SapioQ, a diagnostic questionnaire to determine sapiosexuality, but the questions fall flat, especially when talking about something as exciting and dynamic as sexual attraction.

The SapioQ is a list of nine statements that the participant ranks on a 1-5 Likert scale, from ‘Strongly Disagree’ to ‘Strongly Agree’ as they apply to them. Even though it is psychometrically sound, the SapioQ includes statements like “A physically attractive person with only an average intelligence is a turn off for me” and “I cannot imagine myself in a sexual relationship with someone who works in a very intellectually demanding job.” My objection to these statements is that they present the participant with a cold assessment of sapiosexuality; merely considering an interaction with a hypothetical intelligent person, where they’re simply considered intelligent or their intelligence is marked by their job, is not enough to scrape the surface of sexuality.

In addition to the problem of the subjectivity of intelligence (i.e., what is it?), the assessment is largely devoid of what the person of desire’s intelligence is actually doing for the sapiosexual. Intelligence represents a potential, but it is the creativity flowing from the potential that causes the excitement. For me, to come across a female writer, whose prose is second to none, and writing can stimulate deep thought and the ability to see a new perspective — that is what is so hot. It’s the way they have used their intelligence to manipulate and play with my own thoughts that is so arousing. By looking at how some of the best writers and artists have made people feel, there might be some credible headway made in understanding sapiosexuality. Amateurs in all of those fields can recognize the brilliance of this intelligence by contrasting the work with their own abilities, and it is then that behavioral scientists might want to start measuring blood flow to the genitals.

The SapioQ appears to be rigidly focused on the idea of intelligence when actually wanting to choose a sexual partner for relationship purposes. But this undercuts the important role of fantasy. I would argue that regardless of sexuality, fantasy plays a huge role in how a person experiences sexual thought and fulfillment. Having your mind teased by the intellectual acrobatics of a person makes for a fun evening (even night!). The creative output of many intellectuals is already inside people’s homes, ready to made use of when a person wants to dim the lights and be titillated by genius. These are private moments for the sapiosexual and they may or may not transfer over to finding a partner.

Perhaps the largest problem with sapiosexuality is that it might be best thought of as not a sexuality at all. Sexuality is a kind of macro identity that attempts to describe, in an almost exclusive way, with whom a person desires to interact sexually. Gignac appeared to acknowledge this problem with an additional instruction to participants when they completed the SapioQ: “When considering your responses, assume that the person/mate is of your preferred gender.” In other words, they acknowledge that sapiosexuality is in all likelihood secondary to one's main sexuality. But maybe there are secondary sexualities. Maybe the fluidity of a macrosexuality leads right into secondary sexual preferences and orientations. Or maybe sapiosexuality is destined to end up with the kinks, quirks, and even the paraphilias. Only more solid and soulful research can start to peel back the layers of sapiosexuality.

Can I rate from 1 to 5 if “Listening to someone speak very intelligently arouses me sexually”? Not really, not without adding so much context from the depths of my own fantasies. However, I could tell you at length what reading Sontag and Didion have done for me and how satisfying it was.

Facebook image: Nestor Rizhniak/Shutterstock