Toxic Masculinty

Post Reply New Topic

Annnnnnd there's THIS


Gauldoth may very well be correct about Autistic women. But when you speak of "neurodiverse" women do you mean women on the autistic spectrum? Because I've encountered women with other mental health issues who have EXTREMELY strong sex drives. Some of the most lecherous women I've met have been borderline. Bipolar women also have hypersexual tendencies when they're manic. But for all this talk about women not wanting sex, I seem to have no trouble meeting women who not only want it, but are open about it.

Then again Gauldoth doesn't realize that the high school girls whom he befriended may not have talked to *him* about their sex lives but that doesn't imply that the had none. And you have it backwards: Women don't readily admit that they like sex because they are pickier about who they sleep with and don't want to give men they're not into the wrong idea. So if a woman talks about sex to you and says she likes it that's a pretty good indicator that finds you attractive unless she's drunk/high and flirting with you. It's only a "competitive disadvantage" for a woman to say she doesn't like sex to a guy she finds attractive.

OkCupid seems to have a lot women looking for sex and they state it openly on their profiles. One chick who I went on a date with circa 4 years ago whom I texted for a week beforehand actually gave me a direct invitation one evening to come over and f**k. We met at a bar and she decided then that she wasn't into me but she was txting dirty to me for days. And until you, Mr Gauldoth, actually get involved with a pregnant woman or get a woman pregnant and stick around, don't f*cking tell me what pregnant women are like when it comes to sex

Last edited by Lazar_Kaganovich on 24 Apr 2015, 10:12 am, edited 1 time in total.

Only on an Aspie forum could someone have so little self awareness they think the lack of experience (something you seem oddly proud of) makes them an expert on a subject.

Have you ever thought that maybe it's you and your attitude that repulses women and not some inborn flaw of female genetics or a cabal of feminist overlords with a vendetta against you? Like maybe most women don't like guys who resent them for something they didn't do? Even if you keep your sexist and resentful views to yourself, you're likely giving off subconscious signals that you hate women. Considering your professed social aptitude, these signals likely aren't subtle either.

I'm not saying that it's easy for Aspie guys to successfully date and find healthy relationships. What I'm saying is you have made it literally impossible for yourself with your attitude. Is the idea that there can be a middle ground between spineless pushover and sexist a**hole really that alien to you?

A-MEN mah Aspie Brotha!


I recant what I posted earlier about you, Geekonychus. You're totally correct about Gauldoth. And honestly, I treat pop psych articles found in psychologytoday with a grain of salt. Lies, DAMNED LIES, and Statistics.

Gauldoth doesn't want to admit that a big reason the women he's known didn't talk about sex to *him* is that they just weren't into him.

I met my wife on OKC and had some pretty decent success on the site before then.

Gauldoth (and unfortunately many other socially awkward men) seems to operate on reverse logic. In his head, the ability to repulse women somehow makes him an expert on the inverse. It's why the opinions of people who are similar to him (Aspie males) yet still find success are dismissed.

The reverse logic he follows tells him he shouldn't listen to you precisely because you can get sex and relationships. He likely assumes that you, Lazer, are intentionally lying and giving bad advice in order to knock him out of the sex market, just like he accused the writer of the articles I linked, Doc Nerdlove, of doing.



Clearly, we're just trying to up our miserable social status at his expense. Don't feel bad though. It's just our nature as simpering manginas.......

As for the current discussion at hand. The idea that men are more interested in sex than women is utter hogwash. People who try to justify that logic in evolutionary psychology terms are using outdated conceptions as to what constitutes natural human behavior that date back to Darwin's time. In the 1800s, western society was indisputably patriarchal and christian with women (and their chastity) being little more than property. Scientists at the time (all white men of course) assumed this was the natural human condition and used it to justify all manner of racist and sexist ideas that don't hold up today. The assumption that women aren't supposed to like sex was then attributed to evolutionary theory when in reality it was a purely social development.

Really just less than 10,000 years ago, before the development of civilization and the concept of personal property (and more specifically other human beings as property), we lived in large polyandrous tribes where everyone was doing everyone else. Google Bonobo chimps (our closest living genetic relatives) if you want an idea of what it was like.

The idea that women in the 21st century (at least western women) can start owning their sexuality and enjoying sex is not in defiance of the natural order. It's the result of them casting off thousands of years of social psychological oppression and being allowed to embrace their 100% natural desires.

As for non-neurotypical females, we've had this discussion before on this forum. Particularly with Aspie women it seems like they are more likely to be either Asexual or Hypersexual (tending to either extreme rather than falling somewhere in the middle.) This is pretty consistent with the nature of the Aspie brain and I'm pretty sure it applies equally to Aspie males.

Last edited by Geekonychus on 24 Apr 2015, 11:51 am, edited 1 time in total.

I joined OkCupid almost 10 years ago in October 2005. It also has forums where I was an extremely active participant and 5 years ago the forums were a pretty happening place; albeit with plenty of trolls and socks!
I've even heard hipsters talking about it IRL at bars and bohemian cafe's....The bottom line though is that I was on OkCupid before it was cool.

And I too have gotten many, many dates from it including a srs relationship last year that almost succeeded. I know, I'm pretty cynical these days because I went through an ugly breakup and she was a psychotic drama queen that left me feeling hurt and very angry. But at least I'm not a Give-Up Artist like Gauldoth(and sly too)! A winner never quits and quitter never wins. Dr Nerdlove has some good advice. What I call BS on is when advice givers try to invoke dating leagues and suggest you date someone who is viewed as undesirable to most because that means they're an "easy catch".

Well most straight men are turned off by masculinity in women. And most straight women are turned off by femininity in men. Bisexual women often *do* like men with some feminine qualities and I've met straight women who are the same way. My best friend J is quite effete and his wife is rather butch even though she's totally straight.
Some straight women have stated openly that they find many gay men sexually attractive but I'm skeptical how common that is. Jedem das seine.

The very concept of a leagues and what does/doesn't make someone attractive is entirely subjective so I dismiss it outright. The idea that your supposed to feel grateful someone will date you or resentful you had to settle for someone makes a healthy relationship a literal impossibility. The solution is to simply recognize that leagues are in your head and that believing in them is just going to place further restrictions on an already difficult process. I'll have to read the article again but I'm pretty sure Nerdlove's point was along the same lines.

My first relationship (I was 20) lasted for 5.5 years (1.5 too many.) When I got out of it, I found myself in my mid-twenties and not even knowing how to talk to girls. I could have been bitter and resentful about it but having suffered through a bad relationship for so long I was able to get an idea as to what I actually wanted to look for. Rejection and breakups really only hurt you in the long run if you learn nothing from them or learn the wrong lessons (i.e. All women are b*****s, Aspie men are a slave-caste, the feminazi overlords are out to get me cause I'm so nice, etc.)

I think the trap a lot of socially awkward people fall into when trying to date is worrying about what the majority (i.e. neurotypical) think or want and trying to cast the widest net possible. You should be focusing on being open and making yourself attractive to that 1% of weirdos (I use that term endearingly) that actually might like you for you. The other 99% will likely ignore or avoid you but that's a good thing as it keeps you from wasting your time on them.

Where Aspies fail is when they try and date like a neurotypical. The only successful pick-up artists are the ones with the social aptitude to do so without coming across as a creeper.

Thing is, I don't actually believe that Gauldoth (or many others of his ilk on here) is a bad person by any means. He's simply lonely and wants to be loved. Sadly he's ascribed to a set of philosophies that tell him he's a loser and as a result as made himself into a bitter sexist jerk that any healthy sane women would avoid like the plague. From the 2nd article:

You make a lot of excellent points, and we're probably mostly in agreement.

I don't see anything wrong with casting the widest net possible, though. I think you have to find a balance. I'm not a fan of trying to "shock and awe" people into dating me, and I've never been especially concerned what people think about me--and I realize those are things do not help me appear more attractive to others, NT or otherwise.

But at the same time, I don't think you should take anything for granted, either.

The problem I have with a lot of the kinds of "be yourself" advice is that, while not terrible advice, it places too much focus on the self. It sends this message of "if I just be myself, everyone will love me," which in actual practice disintegrates into "I'm being myself, ergo everyone MUST love me." Well, when "being yourself" makes you unattractive to others or is off-putting, then this attitude becomes demoralizing. And that's where a lot of frustration, I think, comes from. It leaves us asking ourselves, "what did I do wrong?" Well, that's just it…you focused on being yourself for no one else but yourself. You are interested in YOU and nobody else.

You want to be attractive to others? Show more concern for others. Forget about what YOU like. I don't mean stop being yourself. I'm not saying don't have interests. I'm not saying never do your own thing. I'm just saying when you are with others, immerse yourself in what THEY like, who THEY are. Someone is going to accuse me of saying you have to act like a NT to do that. Um, no, you don't. It's ok if you're socially awkward. It's ok if you don't have much working knowledge in their interests. It's even ok if you don't talk much. In fact, it's better if you DON'T talk much at all. If you're with someone you like but have no idea what they're talking about, just ask them to teach you what all that stuff means, how that works, how he/she learned to do that, etc. And just keep it going. When you step back and just listen to someone, it shows 1) you're a good listener and 2) you're actually interested in them. And if you're fortunate enough to actually share an interest, speak up and share your own knowledge/experience. You get more people interested in YOU the more vested you are in their lives.

Works with just making friends, business networking, and dating. Specifically with dating, I really do believe in spreading a wide net and make a habit of investing time in as many moos as you can--y'know, as "friends"--until eventually you find you're spending most of your time with a very select few individuals. These are people who already like you "for you," and likely people you're compatible with. But they aren't going to see you "for you" if you don't regard them as valuable and act towards them accordingly.

And that's what that supposed to prove exactly? That women are more open to sexual advances during ovulation? That wouldn't surprise me, but so what? Does that mean they'll give lower-status men like myself a chance? Are they out having sex for sex's sake the way most men are (or wish they were)? I think we know the answers to those questions.

This is an interesting point, I remember a medical article I read a while back that claimed that most women did not enjoy sex until they we're doing it to try and have a baby. It was full of testimonies by women saying they thought sex was the most painful, uncomfortable, degrading experience they've ever had until they started trying to have a baby, and then it wasn't so bad anymore. Of course, the sex was still very much the same, it's just that now it had an end goal that ctually interested them in mind.

Of course, what that article didn't mention, was the "dry spell" that started right after these women got what they wanted and became pregnant and lasted until the end of the relationship.

Also, f**k that s**t. Even if I found a woman desperate to want to have my child (a scary thought indeed), I'm not gonna shack up with her just so I can have a small period of sexual adventure, only for it to come to a screeching halt after she gets pregnant, and then be stuck the rest of my life taking care of a shrieking little hellspawn and some ugly hag (because, let's face it, that's the only type of woman who would ever want my wretched seed) who won't even deign to f**k me once in a blue moon. Seriously, f**k that.

AngelRho, careful you don't fall for feminism's siren song. Dr. Manginalove and his feminist overlords may CLAIM they want "sensitive, nice guys", but that's only what they CLAIM. In practice, they're first in line to s**t on them like the rest of society.

Last edited by Gauldoth on 24 Apr 2015, 2:39 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Well it does demonstrate that during ovulation, women are more desiring of men they're attracted to making sexual advances on them. And I've had women make sexual advances on me before, actually. Both of those women were borderline. Now it is true that losing your virginity is painful for women, but the more practice they get having sex the more they start to enjoy it. All the women I know who openly like sex have had years of practice with a lot of different partners. Are women out having sex for its own sake the way men are? In 21st century America the answer is Yes. But that doesn't mean that said women are "easy". The fact these women aren't doing it with you or I at the moment doesn't imply that it never occurs or is rare. I really wonder where you live because where I live this practice is pretty common.

Now in the case of pregnancy, what I've been told by women who've been pregnant and what I saw with my ex is that the 2nd trimester is when a preggers libido goes through the roof. During the 3rd trimester and right before birth it tends to drop. Another thing I was told by single MILF on okcupid(SN = jennijoy) is that in the years that followed the birth of her son her sex drive was higher than it was before.

I don't particularly find it hogwash. There is a logic behind why men favor quantity and women quality. There is also a logic why women will not have sex with anybody, and that logic is pregnancy and parental support. It doesn't matter that we have contraceptives because we still have the adaptations we had in the stone age. Such things doesn't vanish just because we don't need it anymore.



What a crazy idea. I suppose you know that Bonobo has NO parental investment and DON'T form monogamous couples? Guess what that means for your speculation? It means it doesn't work, because males will not invest in the offspring of other males, and if women are sleeping around with anybody this means they will not get any assistance from males.



Next you will tell me that Aspie / neurodiverse women have some error in their programming because they don't fit into your model. That fact that they don't disproves your model, because there is no reason why their social psychology would differ from that of NTs.



Yes, and that's because people don't understand what asexuality in neurodiversity means. It doesn't mean you have no sex-drive, it means you dislike sexual intercourse other than as procreation. That's why neurodiverse people can be both asexual and hypersexual, more or less at the same time. The fact is that asexual has a low POSITIVE correlation to odd sexual preferences, and no correlation at all to hypersexuality.

So, this is no extreme position at all. It all makes perfect sense if you understand what asexuality and hypersexuality actually is.

Again, so what? All that shows is that women, during the small time window, are slightly more receptive to sexual advances from their partners and other men they find attractive. But are they about and having casual sex with every one they can like most men WISH they were? No. And more importantly, if no man who meets their ridiculously high standards of attraction, will they "give in" and have sex a less-attractive male like myself? Again, no. So really, I don't see what you're trying to prove with this.



Why? Because YOU say so? I've said it before and I'll say it again: put up or shut up.

I think you misunderstood that. By being natural you will be attractive to compatible people, which in the case of neurodiversity means you will be unattractive to most people. It doesn't become demoralizing if you understand that it is a compatibility issue rather than a universal success thing. And there is no sense in being attractive to everybody when you can only have one partner, and most of the ones that are attracted to you will end up as big failures if you date them.

Human behavior is anything BUT rational. And while it may be irrational for women to sleep around and have casual sex with multiple partners, if their partners are male and they are in the reproductive age range, it has the potential to result in BABIES which in turn promotes the survival of our species. Women do become very dependent when they become pregnant and give birth(until their offspring is at least 1 year old) but humans live in groups and even in the most primitive societies there are other people in the group who pitch in to help care for her(and the baby). If the father is out of the picture, quite often her female relatives(or friends) play the role of caretakers. It's very rare for women to raise children from infancy completely and totally alone just because the baby daddy didn't stick around.
And since women cannot physically have as many children as men can and their biological clock is ticking, those who want kids badly enough will try to have as many as their bodies will allow. This practice of course is discouraged among educated women with careers.

That being said, the preference of women for quality of partners and not quantity doesn't mean that they are any more innately monogamous than men. A woman who is already in a relationship with a man who is providing for her has the option of cheating on him to get his seed while her long-term partner will be the one to raise the child. This is FAR more common than people think and it's called cuckoldry. Strangely enough, some guys will date and marry single mothers and help raise some other mans child so long as she gives him enough sex and there's the chance she'll bear his child.