Female Aspie preferences?

Post Reply New Topic

Millions of years of evolution has hard-wired (neurotypical?) women to be attracted to strong, dominant, and aggressive men. This is a subconscious and universal preference.

However, I read an extremely interesting article about neanderthals (who had an autistic neurotype) and autism, and it appears that autism may actually originate from them. What I found the most interesting was this:

"Neanderthals must have been a female dominated species. Some autistics feel they were born with the wrong gender. It is common for autistic females to be tomboys and for autistic males to be more passive than is normal."

So, any aspie women here? Are you attracted to the more dominant male types the same way the neurotypical women are?

This is, perhaps, the best fuse I've ever seen in this cache of explosives.
It has all characteristics that cause bitter war. This is art.

I'll be observing this one. I'll help it out if the discussion dies down.

Allow me to throw in a bit of science and reason.

First, I'm going to note that evolution is an ever-present process, and that as a species' environment changes, so too does the species tend to adapt. The thing that made for the most successful male back a few thousand to a few hundred thousand years ago is not necessarily going to be the same thing that makes the most successful male today. I know an NT guy who does nothing but go around getting laid all the time, he's a complete manwhore. But he's not aggressive at all. He's confident! He's funny! He's got flair and swagger! But he's hardly aggressive. And he gets more chicks than any other guy I know. He doesn't even have big muscles, he's an average Joe! Don't be so quick to buy into evolutionary psychology crap, no real scientist considers it credible anyway, and they always fail to account for the fact that cultural influences can far and away overpower psychologically-wired preferences.

Second, I'd also point out that it's impossible to have any idea whether or not Neanderthals had an autistic neurotype. From studying things like burial sites, tools, social structure, etc. we've been able to glean quite a few things about them, but all in all it's a very incomplete picture, and will pretty much forever stay that way until we can start growing Neanderthal babies in test tubes.

That's wrong. It has been researched, and I remember reading several research reports. Despite preferences, often submitted as lists of vague personality traits with far too much emphasis on intelligence, women were primarily inclined to look for status and men were inclined to look primarily for physically-attractive women when it became more than just theoretical discussion.

tl;dr: What people say they like is usually not what they find most important.

Yeah, I was kinda wondering whether this is true for the AS women, as the Aspies tend to look at the people as individuals rather than parts of a group and/or representations of social status.

I think it's the very same for all women who don't have a severe mental disorder. They're usually very much capable of detecting these things. I've met plenty in real life, and they had the same pattern of taste that other women had. They dated, without exception, men who were confident, mostly 'neurotypical', taller than them, and with a sense of fashion. Basically, the things women in general prefer.

I strongly believe, and I have hard evidence, that the society in which neanderthals lived were infact of the matriarchy kind.

Disclaimer: I do not believe this, and the evidence for it is none-existing, I just thought it was relevant to the discussion.

It's just a theory, but interesting nevertheless:

http://www.rdos.net/eng/asperger.htm

It is said that there must have been interbreeding between neanderthals and modern humans. That part seems to be true, as stated in the abstract of some genetic research that I encountered about a year ago. That interbreeding could account for some inherent differences between the genetic material in ethnic Europeans and ethnic Africans, as neanderthals were largely limited to Europe and parts of western Asia, meaning their genetic influences would mostly have affected Europeans - the part of the modern human population that had already moved to Europe.

Perhaps, as a personal observation, European modern humans assimilated neanderthals into their own groups instead of simply murdering them, a theory which is still taught in many schools. If it was biologically possible for them to interbreed, there must have been advantages to that. While humans in Africa adapted to Africa's climate, and those who went to Asia adapted to conditions in Asia, humans who migrated to Europe would have had difficulties doing so due to the noticeable differences in climate (it was frozen over and much more hostile, after all), and the quickest solution might have simply been to mingle with the native neanderthals in order to adapt.

[Delete]

Last edited by LD92 on 08 Jul 2012, 12:01 pm, edited 4 times in total.

Actually this is not universal. The introduction of hormonal birth control that mimics pregnancy in women cause them to chose milder mannered and providing men that are not aggressive but protective and accommodating. Have you factored in this wrinkle to the premise of your argument?

Merle

I think the skills which make males dominant and successful in our society has changed drastically from the hunting days. So it would make more sense for women to go after men with money, or men who marketable skills, than physically strong and aggressive men.

Anyways, I am attracted to men who are caring over men who are aggressive. But I've found that most men who have a tough outer shell are actually sensitive, but hide it. So I don't know the answer to your question.

The dominant, confident (and quite often less responsible) men are seen as better for the genes, and the "nice guys" as better caretakers. This is one of the reasons for paternal fraud.

Even if this is so, it would take a long time to be factored in from an evolutionary perspective. By the time that process is noticeably taking shape, even if society will remain this way, we'll both have been dead for at least several milennia, and possibly millions of years. The human mind can't logically approach these situations. It's instinct. Just like rollercoasters. While you know they're probably safer than the car ride on your way to the park, the thing itself is still loud, giant and intimidating, and the part of you that wants to avoid dangers to stay alive might have a problem with them. Theoretically, you'll register it as something that isn't harmful, but subconsciously, it's an earth slide or a thunderstorm.

Theoretically, non-aggressive caring men are better in today's society, but your more deep-rooted instincts will register much more attraction for aggressive alpha males.



That's probably the best disclaimer I've ever seen. To me, that sounds like "I'm attracted to caring men, but in order to find their caring side, I first need to navigate their aggressive side."



Here's a rule I've set for myself. I will never intentionally take long-term care of a child that is geneticaly dissimilar to me. That means I would take care of members of my family, but certainly not a woman's child with another man. Paternity fraud, and I'm serious here, should be punished severely, in some cases even by death. It means she's misleading someone, possibly past his prime or for his entire life, in order to have someone else's genetic material survive. The mother, in that case, is being a parasite upon the man who provides for her. These are situations that truly disgust me. In any case, both the child and the man deserve better than that.

That's surprising, I thought you would talk about how women go for rich men. It seems that many women would go for a famous and wealthy man who is not so good looking. Not me, but many NT women seem to do that.



I don't know I just give up on classifying men as aggressive and dominant versus meek and feeble? I'm curious as to the definitions people have of a "dominant male" versus a "passive male".

I've always been attracted to shy guys/nerds/geeks/the odd one out. In terms of social skills and physical strength, they're usually the weaker.

As for gender, I don't feel particularly female or male. I do question it, but as long as I can find myself, which is what I'm always trying to do, maybe it doesn't matter.