I want to date girls who are on the autism spectrum. I feel like they’re the only girls I can feel comfortable with...

Uh. Huh? What a weird thing to lie about. People meet people to fuck online all the fucking time.

Yeah lying on the internet
so weird amirite lol

why would some lie over the internet?

I really don’t know why someone would lie about doing something extremely common and normal on the internet.

I don't think you'll like having an autistic gf, I'm autistic and I somehow miraculously found a bf and it hurts me how I can sense how annoying I am. Don't do it unless you want to listen to her ramble on about goldfish or furbies or whatever she is interested for hours. Don't do it if you want her personality to impress your family. Don't do it if you aren't cool with whatever tic she has at the time. And aren't ok with her making plane noises in public when your grocery shopping. Dont do it if you aren't prepared to not do certain things with her do to to much sound light etc. Dont do it unless you can truly love someone like us unconditionally. Chances are we haven't been loved like that before

I think I would like that kind if stuff. Annoying at times sure, but i can empathise because I can act like that too. And my friend who i love is a bit like that too, and has other faults, but I want her anyways. I want to meet someone like her who just wants me too.

shut up retard

Hell yeah gamer

Again idk dude I personally think dating is weird, and it should maybe just kind of happen. I think there are alot of fake relationships or short lasting ones bc of so much hookup culture which I dont understand, I wish humans could be like gray wolves and mate for life :/

A depressing that but an honest one. Thanks fren

That's kind of hot.

I did and it was horrible op

Details?

people you find strange

I wouldn't she was very autistic.

Just couldn't communicate and would do everything her friends told her too.

Well that’s too autistic of course. I just want someone a bit like me.

Women can't be high functioning autists. Only males get shit for not being the perfect mentalist.

I don't think you have any understanding of how autism is.

>>gray wolves and mate for life
>implying humans aren't like that more than various animals

The hymen exists due to an evolutionary reason. It's why men say a bastard is a bad thing, we hate raising other men's children.

Society is backwards currently. Men hate raising other children, men hate single mothers, men hate sharing women, women hate being cheated on, children hate step parents, we are literally designed by evolution to mate for life.

Women get away with way more than males do so if you're high functioning you'll get away with it if female.

Ngl if I knew a dude was chasing me because I was autistic I wouldn't even consider dating him.
Have a very nerdy, very specific focus hobby and speak to the women there, that's a better chance for you.

>implying humans aren't like that more than various animals
>The hymen exists due to an evolutionary reason.
No. Like, so much no.
We didn't practice monogamy till a few thousands years ago. We started doing it only when we introduced the concept of property, which was after the first agricultural revolution.
There's no biological reason to care about virginity. We're not "designed" to do it, otherwise cheating wouldn't be a massive thing.

The reason why we have monogamy is entirely social. The only reason why people care to any degree about virginity is that it's nature's paternity test: if your wife is virgin and only has sex with you, you know that your first born is yours. That's the reason why we pass things down to our first born.

It's way more complicated than that. Women don't "get away with it".

Autism is a strongly gendered disease. Men are way more prone to it than women. This makes sense due to the way we suppose autism works.
Girls are generally better at camouflaging symptoms because of the way they're socialised.
Certain traits associated with autism are an exaggeration of the "male brain" - men talk less, are more focused on specific things, are less prone to expressing emotions, etc.

Pls

>men more prone to it
You're proving my point. In women it is never detected.

They definitely get away with it.

>they don't get away with it!
>they are better at camouflaging

They get away with it asshat.

>You're proving my point. In women it is never detected.
It's like saying that men "get away with breast cancer" because they're less likely to develop it. The biological mutations that we think are at the basis of autism are more common in men than they are in women.

>They get away with it asshat.
No, they don't. Women are socialised differently from men so they're taught social skills that might hide the symptoms. Women are strongly encouraged to talk, especially about their feelings. Women are taught that they should focus on being pretty and being social more than focusing on developing their skills and interests, while men aren't. It's not because society as a whole decides to ignore women malfunctions, but because we teach girls how to be social much more than we do with guys.

They don't "get away" more. You're overly simplifying it.

How do you even approach someone in the library? Everyone there seems busy (probably because they are)

an aspie girl this hot will be dating normal guys

well put

What's funny about male breast cancer is when males get it there's no funding for them. No help.

Only women are helped, hence the homeless population being 75 percent males. Women are naturally wanted. It's also why women are bpd at, was that not also thrice the rates of men? They get away with bitch behaviors. Then they commit suicide three times more, men do, yet females ''''''attempt'''''' suicide at thrice, again, the rates of males. For attention. Males are not so taken care of.They get the ocean when the Titanic goes down. They get drafted. They go to jail thrice, yet again, the rates of females. Yet are arrested at TEN TIMES the rates of females. Why would they even behave in such a dystopian FemNazi world? More expensive car insurance for the males too.

Women get away with more. Way more. Only a fool would bait me this way, or perhaps a naive young person or a delusional female/FemNazi that wants to pretend women are treated as equals.

>>the socialization is different
Aka treated better than men. Faggot.

Attached: 1539.gif (295x250, 3.63M)

>What's funny about male breast cancer is when males get it there's no funding for them.
Are you implying that the funds for breast cancer research only help women with breast cancer and not all patients with breast cancer, somehow? Like if you are a man with breast cancer you get sub par treatment compared to a woman, even if better treatment is available, because you have a dick?

>Women are naturally wanted.
Women are taught to seek help more than men. It's unironically toxic masculinity.

>They get away with bitch behaviors.
They don't. BPD is a mental illness, you can't stop it because it's not socially acceptable to be a bitch. Like you can't stop being autistic because it's not socially acceptable to be a.
autistic

>For attention.
Because they pick different suicide methods that aren't as effective, due to desire of a painless and not bothersome death.

>Males are not so taken care of.
I agree.

>They go to jail thrice, yet again, the rates of females. Yet are arrested at TEN TIMES the rates of females.
Because men tend to be much more violent due to testosterone.

>More expensive car insurance for the males too.
They are more prone to risk taking behaviours and most accidents are because of male drivers, lol.

>Aka treated better than men. Faggot.
Different =/= better.

The only reason you disagree with me is toxic femininity aka feminism.

Enjoy your mental gymnastics and excuses.

due to your having* toxic femininity

>spend time replying to all your points with scientific facts
>u r feminist u bad
But men are the logic ones, duh.

>Shoehorning people into a predetermined image
Gonna suggest you don't date at all til you graduate from that mentality.

>implying there's a point in arguing with a feminist

Arguing with retards makes me retarded by default.

Not particularly feminist, just educated. You're free to bring your own facts and reply to the points I made, user.
Take a book and study, instead of going on MGTOW blogs and think that they have some sort of hard facts.

>not particularly
>tfw feminist is condescending to me that her opinions shit as they are are educated facts

They're literally FemNazi propaganda.

>stop going to MGTOW blogs
Strawmanning tactic.

Though to be fair I've called you what you are, a feminist.

>societal gender roles are an opinion
>mental illnesses are an opinion
>testosterone effects on the body are an opinion
K. You're just retarded, not unedcuated.

You’re embarrassing yourself

if i dated this girl she would swallow so much cum

>societal gender role
Aka women on easy mode.

>embarrassing myself
It's called not being naive. You can't bullshit a bullshitter.

What the fuck are you talking about?

Dude, don`t make my mistake. Just don`t.

Do tell

They fake emotions but don`t really have them, they will never actually care for you or "love" you. They need you for some specific reason but some day they'll tell you that they don't give a shit about the relationship and never did.

That sounds pretty far along the spectrum to me. Oof. Sorry user.

>We didn't practice monogamy till a few thousands years ago. We started doing it only when we introduced the concept of property, which was after the first agricultural revolution.

Its going to be hard to prove this. The agricultural revolution was from 10,000 BC and 2000 BC. And some of the first written language was around 3000 BC. How exactly do you prove monogamy isn't older without written records?

Unrelated, but I would ask you to step back and think about basic child development. If we are not build for monogamy, why does anything outside of perfect monogamy, fuck up the mental development of children? Almost all therapy goes back to parents as a root cause, and almost all of the bad parental behavior is outside of ideal monogamy. Either one or both parents are abusive or absent. If we were not built for monogamy, why would one parent being absent be so destructive to our development? Wouldn't we naturally overcome?

Truth be told, we are probably built for a form of monogamy outside of what we previously understood as monogamy. Maybe something like a two or three stage monogamy. I suspect that 1000s upon 1000s of years ago, husbands would die before the age of 30. The best men would survive to be older. These stronger or more intelligent survivors would wed widows. The widow gains new protection and diversifies her dna. Her first child is an assertive risk taker. Her next children will be more intelligent or stronger.

We're seeing society return to this system as women gain more freedom. They have 1 or 2 kids with an asshole that would have gotten himself killed 1000s a years ago, and has the rest of her kids with men that survived by strength or intelligence.

>Truth be told, we are probably built for a form of monogamy outside of what we previously understood as monogamy. Maybe something like a two or three stage monogamy. I suspect that 1000s upon 1000s of years ago, husbands would die before the age of 30. The best men would survive to be older. These stronger or more intelligent survivors would wed widows. The widow gains new protection and diversifies her dna. Her first child is an assertive risk taker. Her next children will be more intelligent or stronger.

Really, think about it. Why do humans both want to cheat, but also get angry enough about cheating to kill people?

It all makes more sense if you consider that when we lived in the wild. Husbands fucking died. Women died in childbirth. People died of illness. We are built to give our lives to someone until they die an early death, then fall for someone else to help take care of the fucking kids we already have.

We are built for a series of strong monogamy like bonds because one parent usually died before the first children were adults.

>we didn't practice monogamy until a few thousand years ago
Absolutely incorrect. All studies we have say that marriage (monogamy) has gone back since humans were migrating out of Africa. Reconstructed family trees show with some certainty monogamy going back even further. We are monogamous creatures; those who deny this are scientifically illiterate at best and talking out of their ass at worst.

Proof:
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3083418/

>ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3083418/

"The ancestral state of early human marriage is not well known given the lack of conclusive archaeological evidence."

Dumbass:
> Arranged marriages are inferred to go back at least to first modern human migrations out of Africa.
> Phylogenetic reconstructions suggest that marriages in early ancestral human societies probably had low levels of polygyny (low reproductive skew) and reciprocal exchanges between the families of marital partners (i.e., brideservice or brideprice).
What this points towards is a 99% certainty of marriages and monogamy. The reason for:
> The ancestral state of early human marriage is not well known given the lack of conclusive archaeological evidence.
is that there: A: isn't much literature on it, and B: Nothing certain can be found. The point of this study is that it fixes both of those problems.

>toxic masculinity
Opinion discarded

lol what?

do you know autistic girls? I do, and wow they are much more difficult to communicate with than non spergies

The concept of toxic masculinity is fairly simple; its an ingrained behavior in which men do and think things that are damaging to their physical and emotional well-being simply because its "manly". Men suffer from all kinds of psychiatric and emotional damage because they were raised to think that expressing their feelings, being emotionally vulnerable or even remotely embodying female traits made them weak and less of a man. It kills and damages a lot of men and a lot of it is perpetuated by us. I mean, how many times have you heard of and/or seen a dad scold his son for crying or heard a little boy told to "suck it up" whenever he was actually going through some shit and needed support? That's what toxic masculinity is. It would serve you well to expand your horizons and actually research the things you claim to disagree with. Use your brain. Don't turn it off every time you hear a phrase you don't like.

>Only a fool would bait me this way, or perhaps a naive young person or a delusional female/FemNazi that wants to pretend women are treated as equals.
No, just a non-incel.

I love you unconditionally

T. Quasi-autistic guy

just walk up to someone and literally talk to them

how hard could it be

>Because men tend to be much more violent due to testosterone.
This misses the fact that women are provided with lesser sentences for identical crimes.

>This misses the fact that women are provided with lesser sentences for identical crimes.
It doesn't really miss that fact. Men are more violent. This is a fact. Another fact is that our justice system is about perception, not justice. Because of our social conditioning we feel worse about sending a pretty white girl to prison so, naturally, juries are more likely not to in those situations. Black people get longer sentences for identical crimes so everyone's got their social cross to bear, user. Nothing is fair. Stop expecting it to be.

You dont know me ;^;

>Men are more violent. This is a fact.
And the only one you provided as an explanation for the disparity in arrest rates and imprisonment rates, despite there being multiple contributing factors. Check your anti-male bias please.

>nap.edu/read/4421/chapter/4
Men are biologically more aggressive. You know this. Stop being purposefully obtuse, user. I understand you're trying to win an argument here but lets not be ridiculous and start denying reality just because it may take a chunk out of your narrative here.

>How exactly do you prove monogamy isn't older without written records?
The fact that there's strong genetic evidence that more women reproduced much than men. It wouldn't be possible if we were a monogamous society. In monogamous species, both men and women reproduce at the same rate.

>If we are not build for monogamy, why does anything outside of perfect monogamy, fuck up the mental development of children?
Because we've been a mostly monogamous society for thousands of years and that impacts how we act as parents, and how children perceive themselves.
Also there weren't "single parents", children were raised by groups of people who loved them.
And just because something works well for us it doesn't mean it's embedded in our genes and it's how it has always been.

Also if you go to someone else after you partner dies you're not monogamous.

Real monogamous animals mate with one partner and then never mate with anyone else even if their partner dies. There are a lot of peer reviewed studies that shows that we've not always been monogamous, we still aren't monogamous and we'll never be.
Also just because the construct of marriage existed it doesn't mean we're monogamous. Your study shows that thee was polygyny.

why are you so focused on something I never even challenged? Quit strawmanning

It's not for identical crimes, it's for identical charges.
Often women are really minor players in the crime, are pushed into it by a violent partner, and most of them often carry trauma from physical and sexual abuse.
They get lower sentences because of their history, their amount of involvement, etc.

Assume a woman has a physically, mentally and sexually abusive husband. They have children together. He threatens her to kill her if she leaves, and she has no one to turn to. One day she snaps and kills him.
It's homicide, but obviously she'll be given a much lower sentence than that dude who decided to kill his wife and daugheters because of their different history.
The vast majority of women who kill a partner were severely abused by them. The vast majority of men who kill their wife wanted to get rid of her or to get revenge on them.

I also agree with that there's a societal bias to some degree.

well here's one example, specifically sexual crimes
>tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/13552600.2019.1581281
>Furthermore, the severity of sentences handed down to males was greater than those handed down to females, both generally and when the sexual offence could be directly matched.

That's the point

Have you read the post you're replying to?

>They get lower sentences because of their history, their amount of involvement, etc.
>there's a societal bias to some degree.

I'm sure that for certain types of sex crimes (for example, adult women sleeping with teenage boys) there's a societal bias because many men would consider that ideal for the victim since they wanted to sleep with adult women too when they were teenagers. While, uhm, nope.

even when you agree there's bias you immediately rationalise a way to make men responsible for it. I though this might be productive but there's no point talking to someone so radicalised

I admitted that there's a societal bias in general that makes people assume women are innocent. I was talking about sexual crimes specifically in this case, and explaining the bias.
Also the vast majority of judges are men, so it's realistic to say that men are the ones who sentence women to lighter sentences and it's not a women thing.

I'm not radicalised because I talk about the reality of things.

To add on that, when you have female judges the gender gap in sentencing diminishes. Women are more likely to be harsh with women.

>Gender gap decreases with the share of women among judges in the court. An increase of one standard deviation in the share of women decreases the gender gap by 1.5 prison days (around 10% of the gender gap).
publications.ut-capitole.fr/22892/1/Philippe_22892.pdf

What do you say?

>if they have shit grades in school or dropped out of community college, then chances are they are on the spectrum. Autism is a learning disability and easy to spot. Use it to your advantage

>Men are biologically more aggressive.

because women reward aggressive men with sex.

>Also if you go to someone else after you partner dies you're not monogamous.

we'll have to disagree on this one.

leaving a spouse because they end up being toxic or abusive does not mean the person that left didn't want to be monogamous. The same applies to finding another partner after the current one dies. Exterior forces do not change the internal drives of individuals.

I'm dating one and I highly recommend it. She doesn't do any of the bullshit that neurotypical women do. Met her on OKC. Look for girls into anime/cosplay, they tend to be autistic.

DO NOT do it. Just be there often and smile at the first girl who makes prolonged eye contact with you. Keep going like this for longer and you will have some convo going on.

How many guys do you know who have autism and are like really into weeb stuff?

Means: high interest in anime stuff, having a waifu = autism?

Attached: 600832.jpg (435x600, 123K)

>The fact that there's strong genetic evidence that more women reproduced much than men. It wouldn't be possible if we were a monogamous society. In monogamous species, both men and women reproduce at the same rate.

No, that means that men died. That they were removed from the breeding group. IF we were not monogamous, you would see men and women reproducing at the same rate. The men would leave and find other partners. The woman would leave and find other partners.

Only a few things could cause women to reproduce more. The simplest is that men died early when compared to women. Either during hunting or in combat against other groups of men. Or perhaps beaten to death by a competing male.

The other possibility is that women would take a primary mate as a provider, then cheat on him. I somehow doubt this one, given the price that women often paid for cheating. Even apes and chimpanzees will almost beat a female to death for taboo breeding.

Another possibility is waring groups, the winner going into the other group and raping the women. Some of the women would end up pregnant, so they would double their offspring diversity against their will.

>Your study shows that thee was polygyny.

20%

which is like nothing.

The exaggerated expressions and basic wordplay are perfect for people who have trouble with subtle and high concept comedy

It is the definition of monogamy, dude.
>Monogamy is a form of relationship in which an individual has only one partner during their lifetime

You can't disagree with the literal definition of the word.

I have autism and I’m not into weeb shit. I’m really into astronomy and space tho.

A lot of people mistake obsessions with autism. You can be really obsessed about something and not autistic. Autism doesn’t means obsession, it has to do with lack of verbal communication.

Let's agree on the scientific definition of monogamy here because I feel like you don't understand what we're talking about.
>Monogamy is a form of relationship in which an individual has only one partner during their lifetime

If we were a monogamous species, equal amount of men and women would reproduce. No matter if men die, no matter if women died: in monogamous species once a two individuals chose each other, they're set for life and there's no one else for them.
Less men reproduce because few men have more than one women in their lifetime, which makes us NOT monogamous. It's indisputable, and you're ridiculing yourself if you think we're monogamous.

>Even apes and chimpanzees will almost beat a female to death for taboo breeding.
Chimpanzees are not a monogamous species, in the slightest. They're huge sluts. No big ape is monogamous, to be fair. Other mammals are.

It's almost twice the amount of black people in the united states. It's not few and far in between.

>You can't disagree with the literal definition of the word.

Are you a girl? You might be the woman of OP's dreams

>It's almost twice the amount of black people in the united states.

which is also almost nothing

>Let's agree on the scientific definition of monogamy here because I feel like you don't understand what we're talking about.
>>Monogamy is a form of relationship in which an individual has only one partner during their lifetime

no one cares about your asburgers autistic adherence to web definitions.

People have a strong urge to have one lifelong partner. Its a primary driver for many people. Finding out your partner is a pile of shit doesn't change that people want one partner. Or that their partner dies.

We're talking about functional actual real life monogamy. Not some shit you got off webster.com

It's the fucking meaning of the word. If you want to disregard the meaning of a word, decide it means something else, and decide that it is something that humans do all the time just to win an internet argument, go ahead.
It's not what the word means.

>People have a strong urge to have one lifelong partner.
People have strong urges to cheat, too. Most people had sex with people without thinking it was their lifelong partner, or cheated on their lifelong partner to have sex with someone else. They remarry, they divorce.
If we had such a strong innate impulse to find one partner and be with them forever, it would be extremely predominant, and most people would pick a partner and stick to them whatever happens.
It's most likely a societal thing.

> functional actual real life monogamy.
And people don't even do that.

Stupid viewpoint. Meeting, dating, and making mistakes with people is the fastest way to "graduate" from immaturity.