I’m currently of the thinking that the notion of attraction to an objective “intelligence” ( often referred to as “sapiosexuality” ) is a candy-coated path to justification for being an asshole to others.

I think when we say “I’m attracted to smart people,” what we’re really saying is “I’m attracted to people with whom there is complimentary agreement and who I and my peers find conventionally attractive. Maybe polysyllabic. I think of myself as intelligent. Plus, this is a free pass to ditch someone with whom I disagree, because I can claim they aren’t intelligent.”

Litmus test 1: How many “intelligent” people is one attracted to when there is no agreement? (“Man, that guy I just can not agree with, but he’s brilliant and cogent, so naturally, my panties are soaked.” )

Litmus test 2: How many “exceptions” crop up once the panties get wet? (“Well, he may not be conventionally intelligent, but he has [an artist’s soul | a good heart | the heart of a poet | an old soul | a tongue like a cobra and a cock like a soft-rubber jackhammer]…” )

I think to even the most casual observer, the fetish for “intelligence” smells a lot like any number of -isms. Classism and racism are the first that come to mind.

The notion that it’s “natural selection” is a bit like saying “I never studied biology, but I can misquote it to justify my preferences.”

That said, is it wrong to be attracted to what you’re attracted to…?

Well, probably not — we are like most species in that we tend to think with our (metaphorical) dicks.

But if we want to even remotely claim we’re “intelligent,” then it seems reasonable to look in the mirror four or nine times a day and ask “Why do I like what I like?”

That’s the mark of a really clever monkey. That’s where you start unpacking your own foolishness.