Disclosing Autism in a dating profile

[Hypnalis]

As a female, can l please tell you that l searched for relationships too, but l met many, many, many guys who decided they were interested in sex, and they felt their short-term needs took priority over all my needs. So, no women don't have it easier.

This is trivializing a genuine problem by comparing it with completely different issue.
It's usually called "whataboutism" and was a favorite of Communist Russia.
But you could also roll it into "distraction/deflection/denial", which has wider applicability.

Your post is actually self-refuting.

Simplified:
* You've had too many opportunities to interact, but don't want what's on offer.
* SteelBook has had too few (if any) opportunities to interact, so he doesn't even get the opportunity to select according to his preferences.

A food comparison: SteelBook is starving, while you have easy access to sustenance, but you're unhappy because you want Cordon Bleu, but only US-style chain restaurants and fast food are available.

Another perspective that's interesting in this case: There's a modern saying:
"XX's control access to physical intimacy: XY's control access to relationships".
This is one of many very solid indicators that the dating/mating game is XY/XX asymmetrical.

The current game is so dysfunctional that the best strategy for XY's is not to play for a few decades. There are actually signs that this is happening, but it's too soon to make predictions.

One of the first indicators you'd expect, and seems to be happening, is that XY's have stopped "paying in advance" and instead are either achieving their tactical goals immediately, or walking away.
Which I think is highly amusing, because it means the behaviors consistent with evolutionary psychology are re-asserting themselves.

It will be interesting to see how modern 'Critical Theory" explains this away /lol.

 

[Aspychata]

What l am specifically saying is that l get many guys who want me for short-term needs. Constant encounters exactly like this shoot down every other guy after a couple of years of this same behavior. Just because you may be a polite guy, doesn't mean that over 85.6779% men act like you or others at this forum.

 

[Aspychata]

@Hypnalis
Actually, l moved to Hawaii, and l was very happy there. The men had manners, and l love Asian food. So l found my kimchi man. Lol. But thank you for your faulty thinking. Men are often looking for short-term gratification in life. There are women who look for more of a relationship, so neither men nor women are wrong or right. It just is what it is.

 

[cooljethro]

@Hypnalis

You could always aspire to be a male spinster?

Check this guy out:

I'm resigned to being a male spinster – relationships aren't worth the effort

 

[Hypnalis]

@Hypnalis

You could always aspire to be a male spinster?

Check this guy out:

I'm resigned to being a male spinster – relationships aren't worth the effort

Paywalled. But spinster is a gendered word - i.e. there's no such thing as a "male spinster".
So without the article I can't tell if you're (a) joking or (b) you and/or the article are making a point by subverting ordinary language.

Lets leave this as it is (i.e. indeterminate ("no harm - no foul"). There will be anther opportunity (either for a joke or a polite skirmish in the culture war

 

[Hypnalis]

Good to know that (unlike U2) you've found what you were looking for
And in Hawaii too!

I'm not sure where you're going with the "faulty thinking" claim though. I have to treat it as denial/redirect (see below), but I'm just rewording the logic a bit.

But thank you for your faulty thinking. Men are often looking for short-term gratification in life. There are women who look for more of a relationship, so neither men nor women are wrong or right. It just is what it is.

This seems to be the main point at issue:

Just because you may be a polite guy, doesn't mean that over 85.6779% men act like you or others at this forum.

The data that supports my "whataboutism" comment is that the XY's that get matches on the apps are already a small percentage. It's a "hockey-stick curve", so the exact boundary between ("little or no matches" and "a significant number of matches" is variable and somewhat subjective.
Online claims range from 10% to 30%. Lets assume 20%.

And getting a lot of matches turns many of those XY's into low-key narcissists. Let's assume 80%.

80% of 20% is only 16%.

There's no data that shows 85-odd percent of XY's on the apps are narcs. There's no way to know, because 80% of the XY's don't get enough matches (let alone dates, which are significantly less frequent) to figure out if they're narcs or not.
OTOH the baseline difference in objectives (short- vs long-term) is strongly influenced by genetics. Culture can override innate behaviors of course, but in this case the baseline is still asserting itself - but with a 10-year delay.

The inexorable math of dating/mating apps is the reason I pointed out the extreme XY/XX asymmetry in the first place. If the numbers were different, my conclusions would change.
For example I remember when XY's had an edge in the dating market (very different times of course). Back then the problems were asymmetrical in type but almost equal in scale. But the past is gone forever.

BTW: there's a guy on YouTube who covers topics within "the war between the sexes" using hand-drawn diagrams.. He works at finer granularity then I do, but I saw a clip this morning that's consistent with our discussion.
I won't link it because (a) he's definitely on one side of the war, and (b) some people find the channel name "ideologically troubling", but I can link it if you like.
:
:
A summary of sorts:

XY dating is a mess in 2026. XX dating is a mess in 2026. But they're distinctly different problems.

And weirdly, since every successful (e.g. not "foodie", not catfishing) instance of participation is individually symmetrical, there's no simple cooperative solution to rebalance it.

Instead the only resolution in sight is a boycott (no dates, no chivalry, no free practical help, limited interaction) by XYs of all ages. It's not going to end well for either "side", which is a shame.
But there's no way back: trust can't be re-established quickly.

On the plus side, 50% of marriages don't fail There are still normal nuclear families.
But a lot of them are Boomers, whose marriages are ending the old-fashioned way.