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.

 

[Steelbookcollector217]

i see nothing wrong

 

[Jonn]

"Need to know" basis only. Something to disclose in the event you establish a relationship.

Not something I'd want to advertise right out the gate....

Agreed.

Most of us feel a certain degree of comfort in attempting to explain the mysteries of who and what we are neurologically. However IMO the odds of most people understanding are very remote. Worse when you find out how many of us have loved ones and family who also just don't understand or don't want to understand.

It worked for me because my partner had previous experiences with people on the spectrum.
But I think this was a fluke of luck.
I suggest mixing with other NDs rather than NTs.

* There are a very few who will want to understand and succeed.

* A few more who will want to understand and fail.

* Leaving the majority to be indifferent, often defaulting to an expectation and even a demand for us having to adapt to the neurological majority, even if it isn't really possible for us.

I think a lot of NTs would put us in "The too hard basket" and move on.

 

[Jonn]

@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

He doth speaketh the Truth.
The guy in the article, I mean.
There are a lot of compromises in a relationship.

 

[Jonn]

Paywalled.

Spoiler

By my mid-twenties I knew I wanted to be a spinster.


I took a look at the world and saw that having children was absolutely not something I was going to do: the future seems bleak; the economy only works for the wealthy. I might well have what it takes to be a good parent, but working to feed ungrateful kids, trying to give them hope for a future I’m despondent about, instead of just gallivanting and making the most of life, is a miserable trade-off. Besides, I’d rather be there for people who already exist.


I then expanded the same thinking to relationships. As a person who wants to enjoy life by living modestly and spending as much time as I can doing things that I feel have a positive impact for society (as well as travelling, photographing, and writing for myself), I’m not sure I can really afford a wedding, nor married life. Maybe not even a long-term relationship. I value my freedom, and relationships, even the good ones, are usually a compromise on that.

I like to spend my evenings having a long walk in the rain, throwing darts and reading about psychotherapy, letting my mind dream about a weekend somewhere strange like Preston, to see its wonderfully designed bus station and Deepdale Stadium.


Relationships, particularly serious ones, tend to involve sitting on a sofa watching TV but really talking over it to decide whether or not to send engagement brunch invites on recycled unbleached paper. I don’t care for any of this at all.


Someone could soon come along and change all of this, or fit right in with my admittedly weird ways, of course. But that’s unlikely. The average age of heteronormative men to marry is 34.3 years young.


That’s pretty much exactly five years from now for me. I give the prospect of being married in five years absolutely no chance (and not just because I don’t want to – who needs a guy that visits bus stations) and so I am destined to become a male spinster.


It’s an exciting prospect. I like my solitude, I like being able to spend my evenings and weekends doing exactly what I want to do. I love living alone. I am a bit of a people pleaser and so it doesn’t tend to be in my nature to put myself first when I am in a relationship – I will reply as soon as possible even if it inconveniences me, I will go out of my way to be there for people and to love them on their terms more than mine.


It can be exhausting. I can even lose a sense of self, and I need time to rebalance from that (friends included). Plus, when I let myself be, I am selfish. Sharing a bed all the time, even when one of you is ill and can’t keep snot off the sheets, dealing with food poisoning (having and feeling bad for it or witnessing that mess) – been there. No thank you.


Loneliness isn’t a worry either. I do have friends – too many – and I have more time to see or speak to these friends when I’m single. I have more time for new hobbies in which I might make even more friends. I don’t have to alternate the year I see my family on Christmas Day; these relationships are less consuming than even the healthiest of romantic relationships, and they matter far more to me, not least because they already exist.

Financially, I’ll admit there’s part of this argument that doesn’t add up. I do loathe paying only 25 per cent less council tax than a dual-income no-kids household, and two incomes is of course more glamorous than one when it comes to things like mortgages or splitting the bill on a good rug for the lounge, but from experience, lifestyle creep is worse in relationships than it is single.


You will splash out on comforts that aren’t needed. You will fight over whether the heating should be on. And frugality isn’t sexy. A surprise croissant and some flowers that set you back £18 is. But more than money, being single is also about the amount of time I have to myself, and being able to do things whenever I want.


Batch cooking something on a Friday so that I can spend the weekend watching every second of football that’s on across the world. Leaving my pants on the floor because I cannot be arsed to put them in the laundry basket until the morning. I can do these things, and it annoys nobody. There are no micro-tensions that creep into a shouting match in the middle aisle of your local discounted supermarket chain in single life. We all win.


I’m not ruling out having partners at all across the rest of my life. There’s every chance I find someone who is either like-minded and willing to establish a routine and boundaries we can both authentically agree to. But I am actually ambivalent about finding that person. And not in the dejected, grumpy, denial way. I just think on the whole, if you can get used to your own company, life is generally better single.

​

 

[Jonn]

I skimmed through some more of his posts and nothing that implies a hatred of women jumped out at me. What has he said that implies that his resentment might not just be towards the male dating role and downstream inequality of outcomes? Because that certainly seems like his primary complaint from what I can see.

The simplest thing to do is for someone to copy and paste where they think Steelbookcollector217 did make it clear that he hated women, rather than the system.

 

[Jonn]

Someone who truly loves you won’t care, and you are certainly worthy of receiving such love.

There are pragmatic reasons to be taken into consideration, also.
Pink unicorns and cotton candy aren't for most ppl.