Why Men Are Walking Away From Dating

[Crossbreed]

Based on chatting with (and reading discussions by) female autists online, they appear to be even less likely to make the first move than a neurotypical woman.

Which makes sense. Seeing as a woman making the first move is rare even in the NT community, it's to be expected a socially stunted (AKA autistic) woman would have an even harder time making the first move. Hell, I'm living proof that even a socially stunted man has a hard time making the first move.

That is likely true in a "meat market" scenario, but both XX & XY autists feel more comfortable in the absence of such pressure, like ComiCons, etc.

 

[Ronald Zeeman]

All the ladies, that tried to pick me up before I meet my wife had no issue taking the lead pretty sure they were all NT's The way I acted was the anomaly. I'm no player they broke the rules. I had plans get through college. become financially stable, then search.

 

[Outdated]

Being an Aussie might have played a role too.

To other Aussies?

Although most people do tend to stick to their own cultural groups.

 

[Captain Caveman]

An interlude...

 

[FeatherBird]

To other Aussies?

Although most people do tend to stick to their own cultural groups.

I've never been to Oz (so take what I'm about to say with a grain of salt). As far as the Anglosphere goes, I've heard the American/Canadian woman is the most reluctant to make the first move (while a woman in England/Scotland/Australia is comparatively more likely to make the first move)

I'm a Yank.

 

[Outdated]

I've heard the American/Canadian woman is the most reluctant to make the first move (while a woman in England/Scotland/Australia is comparatively more likely to make the first move)

Maybe it's just an American thing, I've also been chatted up by Suisse, French, Colombian and Chinese women.

 

[Ronald Zeeman]

As a Canadian, noticed the ladies never had an issue making the first move, suspect it has more to do with me being on the spectrum. Asking if i want to share her hot dog, while relaxing on a park bench or standing in a bus shelter waiting for bus. Not how it's supposed to work. I was polite not interested.

 

[Crossbreed]

Asking if i want to share her hot dog, while relaxing on a park bench or standing in a bus shelter waiting for bus.

Did she intend to cut it, or did she offer one end while she ate the other? (Inquiring minds...)

 

[Ronald Zeeman]

She just walked over sat next to me, asked if I wanted to share her hot dog. Thought it was strange. I think she introduced herself a bit more, was close to 50 years ago. It was at Toronto city hall I was just sitting on bench people watching.

 

[vergil96]

Maybe it's just an American thing, I've also been chatted up by Suisse, French, Colombian and Chinese women.

As for marriage vs casual sex it also stands out to me as northern vs southers cultures thing. Similarly to talking to strangers and spending time dining in gastronomies. Southeners seem much more sociable to me

 

[vergil96]

both XX & XY

How about XXY? I'm very likely that in the light of my recent diagnosis

 

[Crossbreed]

XXY is a poorly-defined anomaly.

 

[vergil96]

XXY is a poorly-defined anomaly.

Sounds about right with regard to my experience with gender as a whole

As for being approached or approaching, I can go both ways, no problem with either

 

[Hypnalis]

XXY is a poorly-defined anomaly.

Klinefelter's is one the most common chromosome anomalies.
It occurs in something near 0,2% of males (so approx 0.1% of births).

Male, and male-presenting (unlike e.g. 5-ARD).

"In the majority of the cases, these symptoms are noticed only at puberty."

 

[Ronald Zeeman]

Just found out some women are using linked in to find possible dating candidates, sort of makes sense Person's employment back ground is laid out. Boy is the world changing.

 

[Neonatal RRT]

This is for understanding...for both men and women...autistic or not. The title of this video doesn't really describe the content. It's much broader and nuanced. Well done, in my opinion.

 

[Magna]

I watch the rapid changes that have occurred in male-female interpersonal dynamics, from the sidelines. I don't think we're in new territory here, I think we're reverting back to our primate behavior and in the process, upending many centuries of human societal progression.

Points of fact that relate to the current situation:

> Our primate relatives have a much different structure in their communities in which only the top males mate. It's more of a harem structure in that regard since the top male mates with all the females. Average to below average males are left out of that equation.
> Humans are primates and as such are in the same family as gorillas, chimpanzees and bonobos (who exhibit the above behavior).
>The early tribal structure of humans (ie top males being the warlords, etc) mirrored that of our primate relatives (ie harems). This structure is still found in parts of the world.
>"Enforced" monogamy becomes the backbone of human society for many centuries (ie enforced by marriage laws and prior to "no-fault divorce"). I think it's inarguable that this period of humanity ended up being the most productive. When average men are able to have a mate and a family, average men have a motivation to work, build, create, work together, etc. When they don't, that motivation is absent.
> Enter...dating apps. Apparently if the internet it credible in this respect, the warlords of yore have been replaced by the "Chads" and "Tyrones" who in essence, have "harems" of women while average men on dating apps are left out of the equation. This is a reversion back to our primate nature.
> There's a radical difference in general terms between men and women in relation to their respective attraction to the opposite sex. In general, women are strongly attracted to a small percentage of men and conversely, men are attracted to a larger percentage of women. In addition to dating apps creating a framework where top males have dating harems (similar to our primate relatives), dating apps are conducive to women collectively pursuing the same small percentage of men they're strongly attracted to.

What happens going forward? If the internet is credible and our reversion continues, most people will be single, alone, lonely and childless. Our human population plunges.

I think there's always been a level of friction between the two sexes, but we've since crossed a line to where among younger generations, each views the other sex now as an adversary (Whole other topic as to why it's likely a sick bit of purposeful social engineering). In contrast, both of my grandmothers adored, respected and admired their men (ie spouse and sons). Personally, I don't think society can recover or correct this regression at this point if men and women continue to view each other as adversaries. In short, the current trends of society are a recipe for disaster. Perhaps it will even eventually revert humanity into a something similar to the Dark Ages. That will be long after we're all dead.

Truth be told, I light of the serious and even dire problem humanity has as outline above, I shake my head when I encounter someone who is fervent in their conviction that drastic measures need to be taken in the name of climate change if humans are to have a shot at living on the planet in the future but at the same time has no opinion or discounts this subject as equally if not more dire in nature.

 

[Neonatal RRT]

I watch the rapid changes that have occurred in male-female interpersonal dynamics, from the sidelines. I don't think we're in new territory here, I think we're reverting back to our primate behavior and in the process, upending many centuries of human societal progression.

Points of fact that relate to the current situation:

> Our primate relatives have a much different structure in their communities in which only the top males mate. It's more of a harem structure in that regard since the top male mates with all the females. Average to below average males are left out of that equation.
> Humans are primates and as such are in the same family as gorillas, chimpanzees and bonobos (who exhibit the above behavior).
>The early tribal structure of humans (ie top males being the warlords, etc) mirrored that of our primate relatives (ie harems). This structure is still found in parts of the world.
>"Enforced" monogamy becomes the backbone of human society for many centuries (ie enforced by marriage laws and prior to "no-fault divorce"). I think it's inarguable that this period of humanity ended up being the most productive. When average men are able to have a mate and a family, average men have a motivation to work, build, create, work together, etc. When they don't, that motivation is absent.
> Enter...dating apps. Apparently if the internet it credible in this respect, the warlords of yore have been replaced by the "Chads" and "Tyrones" who in essence have "harems" of women while average men on dating apps are left out of the equation. This is a reversion back to our primate nature.
> There's a radical difference in general terms between men and women in relation to their respective attraction to the opposite sex. In general, women are strongly attracted to a small percentage of men and conversely, men are attracted to a larger percentage of women. In addition to dating apps creating a framework where top males have dating harems (similar to our primate relatives), dating apps are conducive to women pursuing the small percentage of men they're strongly attracted to.

What happens going forward? If the internet is credible and our reversion continues, most people will be single, alone, lonely and childless. Our human population plunges.

I think there's always been a level of friction between the two sexes, but we've since crossed a line to where each views the other sex now as an adversary. In contrast, both of my grandmothers adored, respected and admired their men (ie spouse and sons). Personally, I don't think society can recover or correct this regression at this point if men and women continue to view each other as adversaries. In short, the current trends of society are a recipe for disaster. Perhaps it will even eventually revert humanity into a something similar to the Dark Ages. That will be long after we're all dead.

Agree for the most part. The video posted above suggests, amongst many other things, that humans are at the beginnings of a self-induced mass extinction event as many males will never be a part of the progression of the species and their genes will not be passed forward to the next generation. Right now, women have the choice to procreate or not with contraceptives and access to sperm banks, however men, as a group, generally do not have that choice, creating a power imbalance. 50 years from now, there won't be as many women or men, and attitudes and social norms regarding procreation may change...for better or worse...who knows. If this continues, we will see a rather precipitous drop in the global human population, as this phenomenon appears to be affecting most of the world. World views change over time and it remains to be seen how humans respond to this threat over the next 50 years. Obviously, given that certain genes will not be passed along...will it change us as a species...like in the example of Darwin's finches in the Galápagos Islands? What will that look like in 50-100 years...or...will the machines and AI simply inherit the Earth?

 

[Kayla55]

Eidetic memory is more common in children, with only about 2 to 15% of American children under 12 exhibiting this trait.

What has didatic memory have to do with walking away from relationships, why do some present CV to have sex,

 

[Hypnalis]

@Neonatal RRT

If we move towards an extinction event for humanity due to anti-natalism, you'd expect two intermediate stages:

1. Cultures/societies that are pro-natal will start to replace the ones that have chosen "cultural alt-F4"
2. If (1) doesn't kick in quickly enough, and the population keeps shrinking (say at a global TFR of 1.0) the infrastructure will gradually fall apart, and the remnants will enter a classic SciFi "post-apocalyptic scenario" as that happens

(1) is still possible, because there are still cultures that haven't been subverted. But that may not be true in 10 years.

(2) will necessarily profoundly influence the cultural/societal devolution towards universal anti-natalism. Societal anti-natalism is a luxury behavior, which cannot continue far into (2), so it there will probably be a "reversion to the mean" /lol.
With the usual over-correction that humanity (at any scale) appears unable to avert.

It would be entertaining to watch ... but not to participate in


There's another view though:
What seems to be happening is that many more women choose not to have children, but those that do have more-or-less the same number of children as in the not-too distant past (so adjusted down for higher survival rates, but otherwise typical).

If that continues, and either that behavior continues down the generations, or "lessons are learned", the TFR flatten out, then go back up past 2.1.

In that case, there would be a gap of perhaps two generations where there was a shortage of workers, biased towards the low-end of the labor market. The usual example is low-end care workers.

But fortunately from both an economic and infrastructure maintenance perspective, there are plenty of "spare" people who, with training, could be slotted into the roles that would otherwise be unfilled.

Given that most "economically inefficient" people are, on aggregate, just as smart as everyone else but less well-educated, and contributing little economic benefit per capita to an "under-developed but developing" economy, there's an obvious bridging solution.

It's also going to be wildly amusing watching that discussion.

Is the US capable of dealing with the insanity of its highly polarized, irrational, inherently contradictory political debate? It's managed such turnarounds before, so I think it's possible.

My part of Europe could do it, though unevenly: most countries will mess it up at first.

But that's still only about 10% of the world population. You'd hope the intermediate cases could do the same thing using their own populations.

An interesting side effect of such a scenario: it could be used to achieve a really large reduction in poverty over a couple of generations.