Female Aspie preferences?

Post Reply New Topic

I would say "aggressive" means leading - not kicking butts and having muscles. So it is synonymous to "dominant" or alpha male. CEO in corporation or leading politician is dominant and definitely "aggressive" - a man without sharp elbows would never achieve that.

That's status. If a man has money, they see him as an alpha male. They don't primarily select their partners on physical attraction; the role of a woman's physical attraction from a man's perspective has to do with men selecting and pursuing a woman who, physically, would produce the healthiest and most desirable offspring. Women look for status, as that is their way of ensuring their offspring - and therefore their genetic material - has a much better chance of survival.



"Dominant male" - a male who holds social power and decides over material wealth. Essentially, it's like documentaries about nature. A zebra has been killed, and now it's time for food. Who gets the first pick, and therefore the best food for his family, meaning they have the lowest risk of starvation or injury by scavengers who arrive later on? The group's leader. That depends on species, but it's usually a physically-strong elderly male.

"Passive male" - in essence, a male who does not actively fight for a higher position in a group, usually because he is not physically able to or not psychologically inclined to. These males can have the last remains of meat from a zebra's bones (you could consider this an analogy for raising another man's child), and any female choosing to offer herself for reproduction with him can expect her offspring to have a much lower chance of survival.

This still seems too vague for me. Men with economic status are different from men with social status. Do you mean both?

Also, what would the passive male do? Just sit and wait for the leftovers (take whatever money he can get) without fighting for his share of the resources (work for what he thinks he deserves)? Would he be the person everyone will pick on in the group? Would he not provide resources for the family because he is too passive?

Plus OliveG had said it was the aggressive male who was chosen for genetics, and the passive male who would be the caregiver. This seems contrary to the notion that the dominant males have economic status, and the passive males do not, yet are still the ones expected to provide for a family.

There seems to be many holes in this theory and differences in opinion within just the definition of the dominant and passive male.

They're connected. Usually, men with economic status are not shy and cuddly. It's their social status that does it. Mostly, it's social skills that determine your standing in life, both economically and in terms of relationships. As long as women expect to be approached rather than to approach, this will stay completely true, and even if women approach men on a larger scale, those men will generally not be the shy and cuddly ones.



Short answer: yes. In nature, these men often don't make it. They're either not chosen for reproduction, or their reproduction is hardly succesful. Even in mankind, the men I've encountered who had never had sex by age 30 were the shy but highly-intelligent ones. The most interesting thing about that is that I'm able to spot them from a distance. It's easy to see which ones have, and which ones have not had sex. These are the pen pushers stuck in a low-level job for years on end because they're not assertive. These are the men who are hardly dashing, and would prefer to spend a saturday reading a book at home and looking out of the window. They act in a peculiar way.



It can be true in western society, because even the most introverted men will generally earn enough to provide for one or two children. However, should only 30% of the male population make enough money to feed their children throughout the year, the ones making enough money would invariably be the ones with the mostly-social skills needed in a competitive atmosphere, there would be fierce competition over them among women, and only the women losing out in such a competition (because they're less physically attractive, or already have children) would actually settle for a beta male.

Additionally, his theory is not mine.

The girl isn't usually on birth pills before choosing her mate, unless she's a non-stop sex seeker.

In which case, uh, she's probably not looking for shy and quiet men to settle down.

I think that everyone is attracted to a different type, and that can change throughout life.

I remember in high school and right after, being attracted not only to the dark and dangerous types but also to several or the nerdy shy socially awkward types.

I didn't get a boyfriend until I was 15, and he was a hybrid I guess. He was socially awkward and looked down on mainstream culture and wasn't dangerous at all and hated those types but he was also very athletic and played baseball. He had the dark features and looks that I liked but the niceness and safeness and ability to carry on a conversation that I also liked. It's pretty rare to find all those qualities in one guy.

My friends had told a couple of the other geeky types that I liked them, and we would talk but they never asked me out or anything. I stayed with that first one till I was 17 then left him for a dangerous type (they were both alpha types although the first one was polite about it) which didn't work well. Another alpha type was although incredably hot, a total idiot and I couldn't let him talk much around my friends. He was way backwoods and only talked about Kung Fu and nobody cared about that, and not everything in life relates to a Bruce Lee movie.

I think the problem with dating the shy, nerdy types is getting the actual date with them. Back then, girls didn't ask boys out. We only hinted then had to wait on them to make the first move. With the types I was wanting then, it didn't work at all.

I don't think you can lump all aspie women into one catagory as it pertains to the type of guys we like. Just like with NT women, AS women can end up wanting a different type at a different stage of life or for a different purpose. I'm 48 and been married since 1987 and back in the day I dated many different types. They all had good qualities except the drunk as*hole alpha male type, which is not the same as a nice alpha male.

I've said it once, I'll say it again

Evolutionary psychology is a joke, as is most of sociology and psychology. Don't believe me? Ask the millions of REAL scientists out there what they think. Ask them "What's your opinion on the reliability and testability of sociological and psychological hypotheses?"

Most of their hypotheses are impossible to test, and more often than not it's just a bunch of educated stabbing in the dark. You can't do REAL science on society or human minds.......yet

The only form of psychology I have even a mote of respect for is the stuff that involves ACTUAL SCIENCE, such as neuropsychology.

Don't think just because something has been "researched" by a bunch of "scientists" that it's credible. There's LOTS of bogus research out there, and even when evo psych research IS credible, it's STILL FLIMSY.

This is just a personal observation, but I wonder if the traits that would have resulted in good hunters would result in successful males today. Aggression manifests in multiple ways, personally I love crushing other people in intellectual competition, and I have an innate drive to learn a lot of things. Physical strength may not play as obvious a role, but I find myself wondering if a more "normal" muscle/fat ratio in male bodies factor into female valuation of males.

It's worth noting that a modern environment has allowed women to simply see physically fit bodies as indicators of a guy who is willing to get off his ass and work in order to attract a mate, even if the actual strength is no longer as relevant. Of course, that's just SPECULATION on my part, which is all of this really is to begin with.

that is not correct. a large percentage of women are on them year-round, relationship or not. it is very freeing to be able to skip having hormonal shifts and menstruation.

ancient hunters were not attention-seeking dominant males, they were team players who worked well with others. it would have been impossible to take down big game in any other way. also, i presume that men would have put their contributions into perspective, as big-game hunting accounted for only a limited part of their diet. most of the food was gathered (plus small-game hunting and insects and such), which BOTH men and women seem to have engaged in. from what researchers have been able to glean so far, there wasn't necessarily a sharp divide in men's and women's roles in ancient pre-agricultural societies.

wow, yes.

It's about time someone appreciated my scientific knowledge!

I'm not an "aspie female" and I think it's hilarious how most answers in this thread come from males I've been reading the forum on and off for a while and I come to this section every time I need a good laugh.

Where are you ladies? Aren't you getting tired to be told what you want by "us"?

Judging by major cities' denizens, I am questioning if this hasn't already started happening.