A comment on the "who has it worse" question...

Post Reply New Topic

Well, if that's the case, and it is relationships rather than just sex that are the important thing then Biostructure's argument about women at least being able to find a warm body to sleep with doesn't hold much weight.

Biostructure's main argument that aspie women rarely reaches the situation where they are sexually frustrated that it interferes with their ability to approach men , basically because they're more likely to get some form of sexual relationship earlier.

Whether is that true or not , that doesn't mean that men only care about sex.

Besides, I was replying to katzefrau , not to Biostructure.

I don't get it, Your programmed to want different things genetically, you enjoy the things you want because of what you desire hormonally and chemically. Why bother thinking about how a woman would do if she had your mind? You enjoy and desire SOME of the things you do because of who you are (gender included). If you were a woman per se, you might want less sex and want to read more twilight novels.

Our problems always seem worse just because they are OUR problems. If you were a woman, your problems would possibly be different, possibly non sexual even and you'd STILL have a hard time of things.

Yes, women generally have more.. or rather different options than us. Yes, women get approached for sex more... why? Because of how men are. Also to be honest, guys get more approached than they think they are. The signals are usually more different and very subtle. If you want sex, as said either pay for it, or play the numbers game and ask several girls out.

How about people like me that don't get approached at all?

Being loved for me isnt much of a concern as is being loved for the right reasons.

I worry I may never be able to trust the other gender again after my past experiences.

I'd exhaust all possible options before I claimed I was unapproachable. I'm also not saying its not possible that someone never gets approached in their whole life. Just the chances are incredibly low.

In the topic itself, the OP's differential analysis of how much more often women get approached isn't them getting approached for anything meaningful.

ummm.....but let the women to be approached by a famous hot celeb (ie. Johnny depp, Christian bale...etc) and the results might be way different. A gorgeous stranger would not be enough for the experiment in case of females, he must be a famous or well-known....a celeb would be best.

>.> I saw you posted that earlier, and didn't feel like responding, haha

But um... the point of the matter is that majority of people are NOT "hot celebs" and women generally wouldn't be approached by "hot celebs" so why does it matter? I can't say what the average woman would do in such an instance, only myself (and that'd be run the other way if it was Christian Bale... he freaks me out!... and continue running for other guys too, but him especially!)

But how exactly will the results be different?

90% men vs. 90% women if approached by "hot celeb", and 75% men vs. 0% women for normal attractive strangers? so what... there aren't that many hot celebs going around asking random folk for sex

Because the hot celeb experiment would enforce the fundamental difference between males and females that you talked about.

For males, since their basic instinctive goal is to increase their chances of reproducing then it wouldn't make much difference if the approacher is hot celeb or some stranger woman who's as hot as a celeb, the percentage of 'yes' would be similarly high in both cases , maybe just slightly higher for the female celeb.

And since women are more inclined towards finding one individual person, then the social status of this person is primal. An attractive stranger man has an unknown social status , a null value of social status - they don't know yet whether this man would be a good provider for them or not, so of course all women would refuse his sex approach.

But with a male celeb , things would be difference , a celeb is like a walking huge flashing tag "Good Alpha male/ provider here" , I bet that responses would be sooo different, the result might also be influenced by copycat mating instinct (you know ....the instinct in the wild that makes females follow the male of the same species with the most mates, this was proven by a study on many species, I recall an experiment about cocks and chicken where they have put each cock in a different corner , one of them with stuffed chicken-dolls , the chicken always approached the male with the most chicken-dolls).

Just imagine that the approacher is Robert Pattinson in Cullen form (approaching teen to young adult girls) , wouldn't then the results would be so different? I bet that they would eat him alive on spot .

I've considered this, but polls on WP have showed (if I remember this correctly...) that the proportion of people posting on WP that are female is, while a minority, more like 1/3-1/2, the proportion of adult virgins is smaller among the women than among the men, and the women are sexually active at an earlier age. Interpreting all of this as "better" or "worse" is, of course, a thornier matter.

Easy for you to say... you're not failing horribly at life...

And yes, I would say it's easier to be happy when you actually have a reason to... feeling happy without a reason is a sensation that I feel is fake, and is why I got off my prozac prescription after feeling like that...

While yes, the social status (or financial) does seem to affect the majority of women (according to that study and such), I don't think putting a hot celeb infront of them would show that. Why? Because those hot celebs aren't out there to marry that person, just have casual sex, so they aren't getting the financial, and especially, emotional support from them that they want, sure more women might go for it, but I doubt all, and it won't show whether or not its because its social status, financial status, bragging rights or what. Theres way too many factors involved with that, and its not showing what your suggesting it should.

And I really don't understand women.. why is he (patterson) "hot"?! !! ! HE CREEPS ME OUT!! !! !! ! X__________X (just not in the psychotic psycho-murderer-rapist way that Bale does... and I haven't even seen american psycho! (it was that he was in right?), only found out he played such a role long after referring to him as such >.>)

i like to think we're a bit more and our behaviors reflect desires with greater complexity than our basest instincts .. or at the very least we can give them consideration and then make more logical decisions when we act, since if we were only operating on that base level it would put (according to the stereotypes) men and women at odds with each other irreconcilably (men wanting more partners than women do) and plenty of people overcome the differences and partner up.

also i find it interesting sometimes men throw around this element of the male psyche as if it's just how they're wired and thus they need sex or novelty. but if women did the same for being primarily motivated by wanting a partner that could provide financially, they would get slammed thoroughly as women already get slammed for being this way (looking for a person with money) although i think most of us aren't.

it's easy to lean on the stereotypes if you're having a hard time getting a partner (person x doesn't like me because she's a gold digger, person y doesn't like me because he only wants sex and i want a relationship) but it is infinitely more complex than that.

Zak, seriously. Do you listen to yourself when you talk?

I counsel people with AS, so I hear about these kinds of things OFTEN. Do you have any experience with people with AS at all? Didn't think so.

lordy ..

well, i hope you are not counseling the women that it is their prejudice causing their relationship problems.