Deal-breakers for men?

Post Reply New Topic

well then... why settle for an aspie? is it really so much different than settling for other mental differences?

Thanks for the request! I'll gladly take time to provide a bunch. For example, I think can come up with a Facebook community with many thousands of members that focuses on "Rape Culture." There, the members contend that four-year-old preschool boys should undergo remediation to overt what that community considers evil male instincts. If extending the "every man should be regarded as a potential rapist" attitude to preschoolers doesn't indicate "reduced compatibility with men," then what will? Your list is under preparation.

Because they haven't really thought about the logistics of finding someone who has no problems as they define it, amongst that many people.

I previously saw a list of 35 traits that every eligible man should have published by a woman (and I do acknowledge that we can think this way too).
I decided to do the math on that.

Assuming:
* Every single trait has a generous 50/50 chance of being true of the person in question, (so that it's basically boolean / powers of 2)
* The chance of someone being dealbreaker-free is the product of all traits multiplied together,

Then the chance that a hypothetical man would have all 35 of the woman's specified traits is: 1/2^35.

Meaning her most optimistic odds of finding her ideal guy under those specifications is 1 out of 34,359,738,368.
Meaning there aren't enough people on earth to guarantee her a match.

Then she has to figure out how to meet all those who do exist and properly evaluate them...

Because of common differences/quirks & mutual interests. I find I just "click," very well with my aspie friends a lot better than I do others and can foresee an ASAS relationship possibly working out better than any other type - but I'm not necessarily opposed to NT or other.

And yes, it would be so much different than settling for other mental differences.. apples to oranges. Just because someone may get along well with an aspie doesn't mean they should automatically be open to dating a homicidal sociopath simply because they're another person with a mental difference and therefor should be just as good of a match. That's absurd. Yes, I know I've used an extreme example to prove my point, but it's proof nonetheless. If I find I get along well with other aspies, I'm going to be much more open to being with one, whereas if I find bipolar/schizophrenic/other people to be far more than I can handle, or want to be around, or neuro/personality types I clash with then why shouldn't I exclude them via a list of deal breakers? IMO, there's no good reason not to exclude them if they're personal deal breakers for me or you or whomever, especially since deal breakers are highly personal - which make them inappropriate for you, or anyone else, to judge.

Yes, it is. You can reason with most Aspies, and not so much with most abusers, alcoholics, junkies, and schizophrenics. So if the choices were limited to those two, I'd choose the Aspie.

Depending on other factors, I might (hypothetically) even be inclined to choose an Aspie over a neuro-typical person if those were my only two choices.

But it's a big world, with lots of possibilities. Why settle for the only available person in town who happens to be a chain-smoking, overweight, abusive alcoholic, when you travel and meet some of those possibilities, and choose the one person that makes you happy?

Sure, it's selfish, but why choose to be miserable instead?

Last edited by Fnord on 09 Apr 2013, 2:55 pm, edited 1 time in total.

that is not evidence of women having a culturally reduced compatibility with men. maybe you didn't mean to word it that way, and perhaps you actually meant something else entirely?

you can reason with people who have mental illnesses, actually. personally, i have found some people with mental illnesses to be much easier to reason with than *some* aspies, in fact. it isn't a black and white division.

many aspies have challenges within relationships, and yet some of them see fit to exclude people who also have mental differences. some people expect others to accept their disability, yet will not do the same for others in dating. it's a double-standard that i do not understand.

abusers are obviously not worth dating, and alcoholics should seek treatment (but they are still dateable). i do not see what could possibly be wrong with a smoker, or an overweight person (or a rape victim, which others excluded) - those people are not _beneath_ me or not worth dating. a person like that could make me very happy indeed, because i do not look down on them.

Fnord,you can aFnord to be picky,you found your soulmate.
I'm happy that you did,most of us will never be so lucky.
I think Mrs.Fnord is also lucky.

But mental illness is also like a spectrum,some of us have milder problems.
I would hope that my positive qualities would outweigh the negative,I guess HOPE is the operative word.

I'm not going to let you play a game of semantics with me. And, I think your working definitions of "culturally," "documented," and "evidence" would vacillate evasively regardless of what I presented. You're out of luck.

Choosing a person with issues doesn't mean necessarily to be miserable, unless giving some support should be considered so. People overcome issues.

But anyway, from a selfish point of view, you don't really have any reason to invest in a person with issues, when you can keep looking for another one that comes 'clean' (as a way to say it). Of course, this other person can do so. Everyone can play selfish. And if one day it's you who need support or has problems, why to stay with you? Why not to look for an easier alternative? A call to commitment? That case I'm sorry, but when you put the 'selfishness' card over the table, then you're not the most suitable one to claim over moral values.

And here comes the most interesting: in our current isolated and selfish society, when tables turn and problems arise, the same people who were proclaiming the morality of selfishnesh suddenly becomes believers in commitment and gentlehood.

So at the end it's about the person you choose to be. But please, if you didn't support when you were at your best, if one day you feel week, don't come giving lessons about humanity to the rest of the world.

no semantics - i was giving you the benefit of the doubt that you were actually talking about something different as you were not able to support your statements with actual evidence. if you're going to make an assertions like that you should be prepared to back them up. i will take it at face value that your claims are baseless.

one group on facebook is not an entire culture's interactions between men and women.

You may be a moderator, but you are not the arbitrator of authenticity. I'm not going to give you the dignity of a further response.

you don't have to - it's entirely up to you. if you want to support your statements better, you can use Google Scholar to find credible sources of good information. it's better than drawing your own conclusions, as you can't really extrapolate anything about gender relations in our culture based on a facebook group.

no-one mentioned cruelty to animals in this thread yet? strange dealbreakers. So basically, new partners can be peadophiles so long they haven't been subject to sexual assault, or are suffering from a touch of depression. This website has shown itself to be full of sick bastards. I never realised people on the spectrum could be so disgusting; no wonder there's so many complaints of difficulty finding dates

First of all, I'm closing my WP account immediately after I make this post. Clearly, I was willing to spend my time to prepare a list of examples and I gave the Facebook group as a single member of a list that would have included many references. However, you have cast my response as if only the Facebook group would have been provided. I could smell this sort of distortion coming, which is why I disengaged with you. When moderators do such, it is time to get out.

i don't recall mentioning a "homicidal sociopath", nor did i mention that anyone should date one. people in the thread did mention other mental illnesses such as bipolar disorder, schizophrenia and depression. they also mentioned PTSD and rape survivors. i was shocked that aspies would be so quick to dismiss people with mental differences, when they are so very quick to defend themselves on the forum as viable dating partners. it is a double-standard.

if you find people with certain mental illnesses to be more than you can handle, then it would be perfectly reasonable to keep in mind that you could be difficult to handle because of your AS. there are many, many threads on the forum from partners trying to get help with handling an aspie. but of course, it isn't fair to assume to every aspie is difficult based on the experiences of a few, and that's what i think about other mental illnesses as well.

i am not saying that people definitely should date anyone at all, but i think it is dangerous to draw conclusions about any group of people based on their neurology. there are treatments, medicines, therapies, or cures for many illnesses. and just like aspies hate to be left out of the dating pool, it is equally harsh to treat anyone else like that without even knowing them first. if i said that ALL aspies are difficult to get along with in relationships, i would not be fair to them, as clearly aspies are individuals. it is the same for all mental differences and illnesses.