Intercourse and Intelligence (and Feminism?)

Post Reply New Topic

I think the feminists of "yore" had the good intentions but bad results.I consider myself a humanist.I think both genders are suffering do to "gender roles" being inforced on them.I really never had many female friends and prefered being around androgenous males.I am probably more "male" then your average female and seemed to fit in better with this group of males better then the lesbians or straight women I met in RL.I have met some awesome women here and SOME guys who seem very hostile and nieve about women.They dont really seem to "feel" us as people,and it is an odd feeling.But then again,they probably have more exposure to NT women then I ever had...I had the option of avoiding them if I didnt like them because I wasnt hoping to get in their pants.

I do love Bill Maher and agree with many things he says but he does have some real nieve views on gender,I dont think I would choose him as a role model as his own "relationship/personal" life does not seem to be very healthy to me.Perhaps his choices work for some one who is wealthy,intelligent,funny and cute...but I dont think it would work for the majority of males who want to have children and a stable relationship(yes,I do think there are men who actually want this,even if some of them would also like to have sex on the side the lose of the former is worse to them the giving up the latter...and by deffinition,you cant have both,people have tried and it just doesnt work)I think he is a little boy when it comes to relationships,but that may be a female bias?

It is female bias. Marriage is the "I win" button for women in today's America. Women press it and they get to legally rape their spouse in divorce court. Women have not yet, as a group, understood the male perspective.

Pro-female bias & privilage is invisible to most women in America for the same reason White privilage is invisible to most Whites in America.

Gives a new meaning to wanting to screw someone's brains out.

If I had to pick my answer from the list of options given in the poll, I would choose "risk averse..." and "lower sex drive...". In regards to the "risk averse..." option, I think that smart people, in short, think things through, not because they always go out of their way to do so, but because their intelligence leaves them no choice, and in all their considering of the positives and negatives, the spontaneity of romantic attraction diminishes. Smart people may be more aware of the statistics concerning STDs, the level of protection offered by the various forms of protection, not to mention the financial and social costs of maintaining a relationship (and of caring for the offspring that might result from it.) But for most people, not all of whom are smart enough to consider these statistical facts, sex is not really something to be thought through. While there are social dynamics and rituals that people in relationships go through, much of it plainly is partying, lasciviousness, taking great chances and risks, and "hooking up," often times with no eye towards what might happen tomorrow, a week later, or nine months later. So, smart people get less sex because they consider these things, while less intelligent people don't. Furthermore, smarter people tend to see a bigger picture. They typically go on to college, and that is a part of that big picture and they don't want romance to interfere with getting their degree. In regards to the "lower sex drive..." option, I would say that smart people tend to have a high threshold for what amuses them or interests them, and while I don't think that it would exclude sexual interaction on a physical level, smart people may also find the social aspects of sex or romantic engagement most of the time, especially as it is often portrayed in popular culture, to be not very amusing or interesting. Now, consider these reasons as they apply to people with AS--there may be some overlap. Those with AS may think things through like smart people because of their routines, hyperfocus, and emphasis on literal thinking, so they might have less sex for that reason, and those with AS may miss the social cues that lead to the foreplay and typical amusement that the social interaction aspects of sex or romantic engagement involve, and therefore have less sex for that reason also. I say the above as a gifted, non-sexual individual who suspects he has AS (though does not have a diagnosis yet) who for all his chances, some of which he is aware of, to stop considering the positives and negatives and be spontaneous, nonetheless chooses to consider them, and therefore doesn't get any.

Anxiety is almost non-existent for me, I know what I'm good at and what I'm not. But, I think many people with AS probably are very, very anxious and that's a problem for sure.
I won't comment on the "little bit forceful."
What I think though is, at times, no matter how intellectual the woman is, if you're trying to connect in some more subtle, say romantic, way, than at times you must keep the conversation simple and focus on less tangible topics. All the dates that turned out bad were when I didn't get the cue to bring things down a notch, lower my voice, move closer etc. But with practice I've gotten better and better and am still improving. Lucky to have some capacity to learn to see those kinds of signs, but then again I know every named chess opening in existance too, so that's something similar I think, in magnitude, to reading NT women's cues. I don't even think I do it particularly well, but I do better even than my NT friends most of the time.

To the poster above me, women love spontaneity- even the Aspie ones I dated! Sex is seldom ever a "planned" thing, you either read the signals, right or wrong, and make a move on that obscure object of (your) desire. You have to be aggressive. It's so hard to emphasize how important aggression is in the dating scene. On a basic level, aggression shows a woman that you are definitely interested in at least finding out a little more about her, if not in "romancing" her. Of course it also says much more...
To the aggressor go the spoils! Don't think of past failures unless it's to re-emphasize lessons learned from the situation. Keep moving forward. Once you give up you're one of those 9-5 chumps rushing about Main Street, USA on their 1 hour unpaid lunch break, bitching at the Sun hurting your eyes and getting ready for your 7pm chicken wing gorge session and ironing suits before you fall asleep to sound of Dukes of Hazard re-runs... and you get the picture here people, it ain't pretty

I hold the doors for everyone, and I'm a girl so I can't really be accused of anything either. However there have been times when men would not *let* me hold the door for them (They had to stop and hold it for me). As sweet as this was in concept, we all would have gotten inside a lot quicker if they had just walked through the door right?

Yeah, I'm really not being nice... I'm just being efficient.

Feminists and the so-called "empowerment" of women has led to a complete BS redesign of how our society works, often disregarding hardwired gender roles and natural human survival mechanisms in exchange for political correctness and "equality." It has resulted in what I call a neutering of western civilization.

Well guess what folks, this just in: men and women are not equal by design. Men are good at certain things females suck at. And females are good at certain thing males suck at.

I'll give you a good example. Women are emotional creatures, and educational systems in the western world have been geared towards that type of learning environment since about the 1960s and on. This is one of the reasons you see more girls going to college than boys. In 20 years, the girl-boy ratio in college is going to be almost 2-1. Now it's about 4-3.

I mean, just look around you. There are hardly any men around. Most of the guys in their 30s now are just boys in older skin, and their problem solving skills are weak because they've been told it's bad to be everything that males represent--and that's what men do in contrast to women, they have a higher capacity to think logically. They've been told it's okay to wear tight pants to "express themselves" and that it's okay to cry for weeks on end if their girlfriend leaves them. They've been told that it's fine if your wife is working more hours than you, and that it's okay to be a stay-at-home dad. In reality, it's all just contributing to a social castration of the male collective conscience.

You, sir, seem to have hand-picked both the worst qualities of traditional values and the worst qualities of modern society, and then baked them into one of the most disturbing and inaccurate outlooks I've ever smelled. Civilized utilitarianism at its finest.

Normally I try to criticize gently so as to encourage dialogue, but based on what I've seen lately you don't seem very open to that.

So I'm just letting you know you're very much disagreed with.

And for the record, my point of contention is not the idea that men and women are on average good at very different things. That part, at least, is true.

I'm a dx'ed aspie. I don't have a lot of 'hardwired' gender stuff in me.

As far as dating/mating goes, there's the hunters and the hunted, people who hunt (ie are more active and aggressive in seeking mates) have more choices. If you just sit there waiting for someone to approach you then you are limiting your choices. I guess its an active/passive thing. In my experience women mostly do the hunting.

I think it just bothers me when women tare into guys about this. I agree that we know ourselves less just because society seems to really put women on a pedestal but the problem is this - they took on the rights and all that but they kept the handouts. Being that many of the sorts of jobs that are best for a guy are actually leaving the US and that its going more toward service, women are actually better built for that environment.

The trouble is though, women are getting worse in the relationship world now though and I hate to watch my NT friends get dealt s--- hands in this. They've gotten to the point where having a vagina seems to make them superior, it seems to mean that the world should be handed to them and that no guy is above reproach and being torn a new one for what you just said - being a guy. I think the only way we'll ever get all this fixed is if the societal norm for guys changes and we start treating guys who are basic, shallow, or sexually needy as weak. If its going to be equal that's great, I want it no other way - but not the sham equal we have right now and really the only way that'll ever happen is if guys unanimously agree to just stop chasing tail and start making them work just as hard for us; or at least its a very good start.

Heh. That would be interesting.
As though we could inflict our
beliefs on them?

Well, until then we'll probably have a lot of little princesses who have lofty highschool deplomas and restaurant jobs leaving guys who care about em because they wake up with a whim that they could do better. We're stunting their mental growth by making the world that easy on them and we're paying the price, I hardly know anyone with a working relationship anymore and part of the problem is it has to be two people willing to work at it not just one.

Why would you end up caring about that
type of person?

Its a problem when its for miles as far as the eye can see and the few nice girls who are out there are getting bullied or shoved aside by em.