Sexual selection and self-esteem

Post Reply New Topic

It's said--wrongly, in my opinion--that if you dislike your body, you have low self-esteem. First of all, self-esteem involves not just your body, but your intelligence. Second, it may be said that we dislike not our bodies, but the ways in which our bodies are different.

Our bodies may be our particular bodies, but intelligence is something we all share with each other and with nature. The intelligence you have is the same intelligence that I have, the same intelligence with which electrons orbit their atoms and trees grow. Bodies are particular, intelligence is general.

They say that to win a woman's affection, you have to be confident in yourself. This involves your body and your intelligence.

Now, onto sexual selection. This is the mechanism (widely written about) by which we choose our mates based on their apparent genetic fitness. Masculine features indicate high testosterone levels, which in turn indicate fitness and fertility. There are even movements, like eugenics, that don't want us to reproduce because we have Asperger's Syndrome, which feels more than a little insulting. I will touch on eugenics later.

Wikipedia writes,

"Psychologist Kathy J. Marshack comments that neurotypical adults raised by AS parents (most often undiagnosed due to the relatively recent understanding of AS) often report 'a lifetime of severe depression, 'nervous breakdowns' and a string of broken relationships because they came to believe that they had no worth. Remember it is the child’s experience that defines the parenting, not whether the AS parent loves their child.' "

You can find the full article here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asperger%27s_syndrome .

I ask one simple question. Is it possible for a person with Asperger's Syndrome to have confidence and self-esteem on the subjects of eugenics and sexual selection? Explain that to me. How can I be confident, from the beginning, that I'm good enough, if the mechanism of selection is ultimately based on what genes you have from birth? Also, how can I have any self-esteem in pursuing a wife or a girlfriend if I can't argue effectively against eugenics?

I suppose I can always choose not to have kids in looking for a girlfriend. But what should I say? That I don't want to have kids because my genes aren't good enough? That I would be a bad father? I don't know, it just seems kind of unromantic.

I encourage you to share your thoughts on this most important of issues.

TRUE Eugenics would and should incorporate aspies, but as for other forms of autism, i can't say.

I have thought about this issue as well... in my opinion the point is very simple : from a natural selecion point of view we are losers , probably bound to extinction in the long run. You just can't go against the genes. I think we had better not to to have kids, we should just try to live the best life we can live, that's all .... note that I'm NOT a curebie, I just try to be realistic

Wow.....thats really sad that you folks believe this stuff.I have always been attracted to guys with signs of low level of testostrone.Why would I want a guy who was aggressive and might beat me up or boss me around or have such a high sex drive they are likely to cheat on me.(non of this was conscious in my teens,just a preference.)?I like guys who are creative and intelligence and never was attracted to guys who even liked sports because I couldnt stand to watch them or listen to all the gibbering about them(I know there are people with AS whose interests include sports).I never liked males or females who were stereotypical genders but preferred "androgyny" because I related to it and felt it was more balanced.

As far as Eugenics....it doesnt make sense from a survival of species perspective,diversity does.The is even more true with ever changing technology.The media shoves stereotypes down peoples throats about what is male and female(I dont really know why),but only the very unintelligent will fall for this hype and you dont want to spread your genes to that population any way.My genes will never be passed on,I made that decision a long time ago.I am not suited for children but I know there are aspie females who have and do want to have children.I doubt they are going to be swayed by the size of someones biceps but rather someone who treats them with respect and can except them without a cheerleader skirt on.It is true that AS is in the minority and as not being as prolific breeders,will remain so.Does minority have to mean powerless and pathetic?Ric folks are in the minority and they seem to have life pretty good(in their mostly NT way).

Open your eyes,minds and hearts.There is probably some aspie and even NT females who will be honored to have some bright,honest,focused kids with you.Dont worry about working on your "six-pack" and try working on your understanding of females.It is an investment worth your time.

Eugenics? I'm not against the idea of aspies having kids, but personally, I wouldn't want to have kids anyway because I think that the entire world is gonna turn to complete and utter s**t in about 50 years because of global warming, all the diseases being spread by the coming excess of mosquitos, the massive and likely-negative impact on the ecosystem brought on by all the soon-to-be-extinct animals (including orangutans, wolves, polar bears, frogs, pikas, and tuataras), the likelihood of nuclear war and possible WWIII (we humans will never learn, will we?), etc. etc. etc. The world's just going to be more overstimulating than ever, and I wouldn't want to bring a human life--especially a particularly vulnerable aspie life--into such an awful world.

I'm not a believer in eugenics and sexual selection. From what I gathered from what I studied, it's mostly based on biology. It may work in the rest of the animal kingdom, however, humans, I think, both NTs and Aspies, are far more complex. I don't believe any of it. If I were to believe it from, say, from the view of evolutionary psychology, then rape would be more widespread among males in the minority. They'd fail in intrasexual selection (competition with males for access to a female) and females would deny them in intersexual selection (where the female chooses her sex partner), leaving rape as the only option for minority males, thus rape would be (hypothetically, in this scenario) justifiable and rational. However, true to the complexity of humans, we've placed meanings on what is and isn't acceptible, what is and isn't right and wrong. Humans are more rational beings and thus, we have the ability to place meaning, rewards, and punishment behind certain actions. Thus, sexual selection among males of the human species doesn't really have any practical application among us (unless for some really sick reason rape IS justifiable, rational, and goes unpnished one day, which I think would be really sad).

Anywho, I'm pretty sure the babble I just posted didn't make a lick of sense to anyone, but ah well. To me, it makes sense. Personally, when it comes to me and all of this talk of sexual seclection and eugenics, I really don't care. I have no desire to carry on my so-called genetic legacy. When it comes to a marriage partner, when and if it happens, I'm picky. Very picky, picky as in 100 years ago my pickiness would be more suitable and my chances of finding the partner I want would be higher, minus the fact what I'm looking for is more based on past personal experiences than religious scripture. If it happens, and I find that partner I'm looking for, great. However, I don't have high hopes for it, I don't expect it to happen, thus I go on with my life and live it the best way I can as a single, virgin, chaste, celibate male, trying to bring some sort of sunshine to this world, even if it's a little bit.

women are f*cking evil.