<Snipped quote by Dynamo Frokane>
Lmao. I am not entirely certain if you're being serious.
If you're a sapiosexual, that doesn't mean you can only get aroused if someone is doing something actively intelligent. You are just attracted to intelligent people.
Well I refer to my original point that outside of johns and sexpats, most people incorporate intelligence into their expectations for a partner. Intelligence is extremely broad, way past the academic. Charisma, Wit and Talent are all forms of intelligence, and you would be very hard pressed to find someone who isn't attracted to those things (along with their other requirements).
It's more like
"Wow, you're quite witty/intelligent, that's attractive. It makes you more attractive to me, despite the fact I might have thought you were only plain looking earlier, your intelligence let's me appreciate you more as a person of interest."
I mean this is very hard to unpack, because we are speculating but 'plain-looking' is one of those terms that seems to change based on who you ask. Plain can mean ordinary and blank slate like, nothing particularly striking about them but perfectly fine looking, in other words, somewhere on the average scale, which is what I think you are trying to say.
But I would argue that id a sapiosexual didn't find someone attractive 'enough' or significantly less than average they would disregard the supposed intelligence because they wouldn't be giving them a chance to demonstrate that in the first place.
My main argument is that it seems to be fairly pointless term, damn near everyone finds some sort of intelligence attractive in one way or another, and damn near nobody would only take intelligence into account while completely disregarding physicality/attitude/status etc.
If the only observable difference is that they allegedly prioritise intelligence more than non-sapios we would need a way to determine how much non-sapios value intelligence on average and where the line gets drawn.
