Don't Become This Guy

Post Reply New Topic

Comments like that could offend people who are told they lack a Theory of Mind (though I don't believe I do). Anyway, I forgive you.

In regard to sexual selection, many people don't seem to understand that considered alone, an ugly-ugly combination is even worse than an ugly-beautiful combination. Sure, there may be 'less attractive' couples out there who are truly satisfied, and I'm happy for them. But that doesn't mean everyone else is so fortunate.

I've been thinking about this for a long time, since I first became thoroughly acquainted with sexual selection at age 19. There are many things we can try: eugenics, voluntary euthanasia, and the conditional legalization of drug use are all possibilities, not necessarily mutually exclusive. At the moment, I believe Christianity -- which looks to me like a manipulative lie adorned with Christmas carols -- is hindering our progress toward the realization of many of these possibilities.

Dude, just be quiet. No I don't care if I hurt your feelings, actually I hope I do just for your rude posts.

Looks don't mean all that much, it's about personaility and sexual selection is natural if you believe in evoultinary theory which I do not.

EUGENICS? So you want to kill people with autism? Real mature. Drugs destroy lifes, but I bet your life has already been destroyed by them,so please don't make stupid comments ever again. Christainity is NOT A LIE, HOW DARE you talk about my faith that way. Just go away.

Are you suggesting that people who are less desirable (according to some as yet unspecified definition), should be eliminated? If so, that is far, far sicker that shooting a few random strangers.

Nature wants variety, not uniformity. A lot of the concept of 'survival of the fittest' is nonsense propogated by those who seek to justify an unfair social system. And bullies.

Last edited by ManErg on 10 Aug 2009, 5:32 pm, edited 2 times in total.

I do not stop to say much on this forum. However, your post is worth my reply.


I hope you realize that eugenics is a culturally defined phenomenon. Meaning, whatever is considered to be the worst in a culture with eugenic proclivities is eliminated. While not a notion limited to the realm of National Socialism, such is an exemplar of eugenics' dependency on social norms: as we know, the Jews and the mentally disabled / socially inept were "eliminated".

This being said, it's rather simple to come to the conclusion that you would not be a beneficiary of what you propose, based on a long term analysis of your posts on this forum. I would not be surprised if you were referred to as "the scum of society" or such, based on your economic and social conditions. Considering the hand of rejections that the dealer of sexual selection has given you, your genes (and possibly even you as a person depending on the form of eugenics implied in your discourse) would have only a modicum of chance of survival if American society implemented a comprehensive sterilization / mass killing / etc. program.


Perhaps you know this and you support eugenics as part of your attempt at self-destruction. Alas, I cannot tell if you completely understand the effects of making room for all the potential reforms you mention. This is because I have read much about your depressive attitude and how it affects you daily. Voluntary euthanasia and legalization of the drug trade are mentioned almost as if you wish to relieve yourself of all this pain, and this too makes it seem as if you fully comprehend that you are wrong.

I cannot, and should not, form a hypothesis on the causes of why you wrote what you did. However, I can reply to both of the possibilities:

- If you stated what you did out of self-hatred, you need to cease this immediately and work hard at the other areas of life to slowly bring yourself to elation, even if temporary. It is a well known fact that sexual selection will roll in your favor more frequently if you appear / are emotionally fit. Prolonging your childish self-torment will only worsen your own situation.

- If you truly believe in what you say, prepare to receive a great deal of flak, because the political potentialities you declare as inherently just are perceived as flawed or incomplete (and not just by conformists). Eugenics, specifically, is understood to be idiotic by quite a few people with AS, because its ideals bear a similarity to the pro-cure movement in that it declares things like AS to be a disorder and not a difference, and also in that AS people should be tampered with. It also is notorious for its inhumane connotations. I should also mention that the drug trade is a very taboo topic, and it should also go mentioned that your overt and unexplained hostility towards Christianity (which mind you is the religion with the most followers in this world) is definitely going to give off a put-on-the-boxing-gloves attitude towards its believers and some of the more morally-minded members of this forum.


I'm too lazy to write a well organized essay, let alone a thorough conclusion, but just remember: be aware of the results of what you say and what you say should happen.


ON TOPIC: This guy is an imbecile. A man of half-sapience would have researched books on how mating works, seduction techniques, how to sharpen your social / romantic skills, etc. You do not charge into the battlefield without a gun. As a result, this is a good reminder to some of the unsuccessful here that this never works or satisfies any party in the end. Much like billsmith, I believe that those who work hard to get what they truly want will more than often get what they desire so deeply.

I think its wrong to assume, if one is not having success in their dating life, that the fault is natural selection and there is nothing you can do about it. In the modern world, very, very few are so naturally unattractive as to be unattractive to everyone. Most people have at least one feature that someone will find very attractive; attraction is, after all, highly subjective. Usually what makes someone unattractive more universally are features more or less within their own control: personal cleanliness, behavior/attitude, bad habits, etc. In a world with easy and non-surgical fixes for most minor physical issues (like braces for crooked teeth), it tends to be assumed that someone who is physically unattractive is CHOOSING to be so and that is what causes them to be avoided much more the genetics.

People are constantly making assumptions as to what someone else may not have liked about them, but rarely ask anyone they are close to and, if they do, rarely believe them. What can be so obvious to every friend around a person, they just refuse to see. Maybe someone needs a haircut because their hair thin and oily. They figure they like it long and figure if someone else doesn't like it, well, genetics. But if they cut that hair, they might look great. So simple, and yet so easy to be blind to based on personal taste and assumptions.

Then there are all the funny little habits that can make one unattractive. I personally find it wierd when someone flicks their tongue out of their mouth while eating. Genetics? No. Habit. One guy I know always talked 3 inches from the face of every woman he wanted to get to know; we'd back away; he'd follow. And yet he never figured out that it was his insistance on invading personal space that made him unattractive; the first thing we all noticed and that turned us off to him.

It is so much easier to blame it all on shallow dating prospects or a loss in the genetic pool than it is to look at the choices one has made and see if maybe some of them should be changed. I realize that figuring out the puzzle on those choices gets quite complicated when you are AS, since failure to understand all the little hidden rules is part of the condition, but the window dressing still tends to be the source of the issue and not what one was born with.

I know plenty of happilly married couples where one or the other or both weren't graced with the best genetics in the world. But I can usually see what was attractive about the person; everyone has something.

I did not insist that we try eugenics. I was just throwing it out there as a possibility.

I'm all for it actually (I'd start with sterilizing people in prisons who are habitual offenders) but it's probably OT here in this thread

I disagree with everything you mentioned in the quote. Why exactly is an ugly-ugly combination as bad as you describe it? The two people in it can appreciate each other for the personality, and not have to worry about one partner wandering off to someone better-looking. Case in point: while I would enjoy a fling with a hot girl (it's a pipe dream, but still), I'd be very cautious about being in a relationship with her, because any guy with better genes can easily charm her into leaving me for him.

I've seen a lot of posts about natural selection and genetics. When an ugly person seeks out an ugly partner, as opposed to wasting time and effort on looking for a hottie, it's a sign that we human beings can fight natural selection and tell Charles Darwin to shove his theory up the tuchus. (I'm not denying natural selection like a creationist would; I'm just saying that humans can go against it.) Natural selection existed on Earth pretty much since sexual reproduction first evolved. Males compete for sex, and females select the males with the best genes. This persisted for billions of years, all the way until Homo Sapiens evolved. At that point, a major breakthrough happened: beta males and females who lost the gene race realized that they don't have to seek out a partner with the best genes, even though it's a billion-year tradition. That was my MO for seven years by now. I've been seeking out girls that other guys reject for a couple of years by now, and found some great relationships as a result.

Come to think of it, if animals had the same ability to lower their standards that people have, I don't think endangered species would be anywhere near as serious a problem that it is today. Wolves, tigers, whales, elephants, and pandas would be able to reproduce quickly enough to replace the ones that people kill. But because their instincts tell them to seek out the best of the best, people have to enact laws protecting them from hunting.

Aspie1, I love your attitude! We certainly never would have made it to 6 billion humans if only attractive athletes with good leadership skills ever reproduced. I just quibble with your idea that ugly+ugly goes against natural selection. If anything, I think it goes right in line with natural selection. Natural selection selects for what makes the most offspring. It's all about reproduction. So anything that makes reproduction more likely is favored and anything that makes reproduction less likely is not. You don't have to be pretty to reproduce. Or make a good living. Or have leadership skills. Or be strong. I think we merely need to walk outside (or watch Jerry Springer or the news) for many examples of people who are none of those yet are parents. What you need is flexibility and gumption. You need both to get into andf maintain a relationship, and then to dive off the cliff into parenthood.

I think that we as a species do something that works against natural selection but I wouldn't stop doing it for the world. I think it's a good thing and to cease doing it would be evil. With our medical technology, we rescue infants and children whose genetic problems would in the past have killed them before they were old enough to reproduce. Then sometimes they have kids. And good for them! I don't think we should be slaves to narural selection either, if we have the technology to get around it. I just don't think that those who pair up *(and then reproduce) despite mutual unattractiveness have gone against natural selection. They've just shown us that flexibility and gumption give huge selective advantage. I don't think it's looks or social skills that work against Aspie men (not for nothing is there a longish thread devoted to nice pictures). I think it's rigidity and timidity. This can be overcome by force of will as you and others have shown when you declare, "I will be flexible and I will just go for it!".

Janissy, I think we could do great on the same debate team. Anyway, a few months ago, I read something a little disturbing in an article on evolutionary biology: among modern humans, the genetic make-up comes from only 40% of early human ancestor males. (I don't remember what time period "early" refers to, but I think it might be Homo Habilus or Homo Erectus.) So, during those times, human sexual selection was just like in the animal world: a relatively small number of males with good genes mated with the vast majority of females. Some books on picking up women say that this rule still applies to today's world. They say that top 20% of all men have sex with 80% of all women. I don't agree with the theory, but sadly, it seems like there are parts of our society where it holds true, like in the same Jerry Springer example you mentioned.

But because as humans, we have the benefit of intelligence, so we can get around this. It's hardwired in the genes for women to seek out an alpha male, and for men to seek out a woman with best looks. But when that option in not available, we can still find a mate, instead of just giving up and living a life of involuntary celibacy, like beta males in the animal world would. Some people call it "lowering your standards" or "settling for less", but I call it "using your intelligence to fight nature".

Bwahhh! I don't believe for one minute that 20% of men have sex with 80% of women. It just sounds like something the authors made up to entice men into buying the book so that they could "be part of that 20%".

I'd say more like 30% of men, but it is true...

That statistic is probably true. But does that mean 80% of the women have sex with only 20% of the men? NO WAY. Maybe there's those few guys at the party that between them, have been with most of the girls there; but what about the other guys? They've all had a piece of the action at some point too.

My first reaction was the same as yours.

But maybe ....

When you realize that I knew one guy who had slept with well over 100 women, well, it doesn't take too many guys like him to cover 80% of the population. But those are very short term connections. Most of those women would have gone to marry and stay with men who had been with no more than 3 or 4 women. Mr. over 100 never married but would have like to; he's destined to be, in reality, quite alone.

But to get to that statistic thinking of guys like him you still have to assume that no more than 20% of all women stick to having only one man in their lives. I'm not sure what the statistic there is.

Numbers can be funny things. They seem so pure and yet ... it is very easy to create missleading statistics.

Deadeyexx and DW a Mom, you're both right. I was looking at that equation in a too simplistic way. I was looking at it as 20% of the men have sex with 80% of the women therefore 80% of the men have to fight over the remaining 20% of the women, leaving over half of men to remain virgins unless that 20% of women has sex with the remaining 80% of men- an unlikely scenario. But of course you are both right and these groups aren't exclusive. Just because a woman has sex with a man in that 20% (let's call them "players", since everybody else does), doesn't mean she won't ultimately wind up with a man from the 80% group. I was looking at it as 80% of women limit themselves to choosing from just within that 20% of men. And they don't, as both of you pointed out.

The rest of the stuff he posted about eugenics and so on. Oh yeah that is scary. But he's right about one thing.

But of course it is a lie, just like every other organized religion is a lie. You are 19 already (living on your own?) and haven't figured this out yet? Uh-oh. Careful. Don't get stuck believing this crap for the rest of your life.