Ah gotcha. I cant relate to the feeling but I can conceptualize it I think. I fall under demisexual so while I’m highly sexually charged, arousal by a random person takes a lot of work to get to. To clarify further, I’m male, but I have so many turn-offs that people are essentially classified as unsexy by default until I’ve done heavy vetting (social and psychological conversational prodding to determine a person’s place in the metacontextual zeitgeist). Then on top of that I have physical and presentational preferences so finding partners is practically impossible. I got lucky that a Tinder date turned into the best LTR of my life, and a person I couldnt imagine being without now.

This said, I’m very familiar with attraction after vetting, but social signifiers have rarely in my experience told me who a person was. Perhaps I’m more distrustful than you, but I can’t imagine getting past my sensors with only a glance. I’ve learned too many times that people are seldom what you think they are at first glance.

To this extent, are you saying that a bi/pansexual has more physically charged sensors for attraction, and so that conversation is not necessary? To that end, is additional conversation LESS attractive? I ask because I’ve run into this feature with cis straight women, where my yapping turns them completely off, even if my body was green for them. Not through offence mind you, I notice they just get bored or overwhelmed with the conversation and wanted a spicier encounter.

You wrote off demi too fast. When you say you find people passing with a good vibe hot, are we saying aroused, or are we saying “Ah, yes, quite the fuckable one, that”. Because there’s a third option and bi or pan only cover one while demi covers two.

I’m not joking when I say consuming every propaganda helped. It allows you to measure each set of voices by their accuracy. You can figure out if people online are correct or wrong about something by taking measurements in your own environment and comparing that to the observations. This does create an issue where you might only trust things in your observable reality, and I would say there are trustworthy places for boring information like the history of groups of people and how light or sound work. Wikipedia put us a long way towards understanding eachother.

Anyways, kinda rambling but my point is, reality is easier to trace than people think. Your opinion isn’t usually too far from reality. The rest is usually misinformation that can be corrected through curiosity.