When NeuroTypicals(Norms) get their first girlfriends

Page 1 of 3 [ 43 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3  Next

rdos
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Jul 2005
Age: 62
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,089
Location: Sweden

18 Apr 2015, 3:07 pm

Diningroom wrote:
Total stereotype. I'm an Aspie & started dating at 13.


I started forming attachments with girls about that age. However, I was never stupid enough to date them.

Diningroom wrote:
Most of my (mostly non-Aspie) friends from school were late-ish bloomers -- they didn't start dating "properly" until 19-21.


Probably good for them. Starting with dating at 13 doesn't seem like a good idea. Given your attitudes on the subject seems to support that. Not even NTs are so positive about typical dating as you are. They are able to see the drawbacks.



AngelRho
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 Jan 2008
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,366
Location: The Landmass between N.O. and Mobile

18 Apr 2015, 3:47 pm

sly279 wrote:
314pe wrote:
sly279 wrote:
but then theres the problem of odds of you finding them cute too.

Well, that's your choice, right?


not anymore then them finding me cute. who you're attracted to isn't a choice but biologically programed.

Riiiiiiight. There's just no possible way whatsoever that any of us could be remotely responsible for choosing to be with anyone for any reason.

I just don't put that much stock in attractiveness. I'm attracted to all sorts of women, even women who might actually like me back. Trouble is I'm permanently out of anyone's dating pool (by choice, I might add). But I've also been with women in the past I wasn't immediately attracted to, and I've even been open to dating women I had no intention whatsoever of forming a LTR with. Attractiveness DID play a small role in choosing to be with the person I married. But it's not the ONLY factor. I think it's possible to BECOME attracted to someone once you get to know them. And, yes, at that point, it DOES become a choice because the attraction came AFTER THE FACT of choosing to spend significant time with that person. You can get past any supposed "biological programming" if you really want to, so I'm not buying it.



rdos
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Jul 2005
Age: 62
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,089
Location: Sweden

18 Apr 2015, 4:17 pm

AngelRho wrote:
I just don't put that much stock in attractiveness. I'm attracted to all sorts of women, even women who might actually like me back. Trouble is I'm permanently out of anyone's dating pool (by choice, I might add). But I've also been with women in the past I wasn't immediately attracted to, and I've even been open to dating women I had no intention whatsoever of forming a LTR with. Attractiveness DID play a small role in choosing to be with the person I married. But it's not the ONLY factor. I think it's possible to BECOME attracted to someone once you get to know them. And, yes, at that point, it DOES become a choice because the attraction came AFTER THE FACT of choosing to spend significant time with that person. You can get past any supposed "biological programming" if you really want to, so I'm not buying it.


Kind of my view as well. The typical attraction pattern of males is to be most attracted to teens and girls in their early 20s, and this is independent of a males age. Thus, for a male in his 50s, it would be very bad idea to use attractiveness as a factor in whom you'd select for a relationship. This is also what studies on this suggest. The male attractiveness perception plays little role in whom they form relationships with.



sly279
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Dec 2013
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 16,181
Location: US

18 Apr 2015, 4:22 pm

AngelRho wrote:
sly279 wrote:
314pe wrote:
sly279 wrote:
but then theres the problem of odds of you finding them cute too.

Well, that's your choice, right?


not anymore then them finding me cute. who you're attracted to isn't a choice but biologically programed.

Riiiiiiight. There's just no possible way whatsoever that any of us could be remotely responsible for choosing to be with anyone for any reason.

I just don't put that much stock in attractiveness. I'm attracted to all sorts of women, even women who might actually like me back. Trouble is I'm permanently out of anyone's dating pool (by choice, I might add). But I've also been with women in the past I wasn't immediately attracted to, and I've even been open to dating women I had no intention whatsoever of forming a LTR with. Attractiveness DID play a small role in choosing to be with the person I married. But it's not the ONLY factor. I think it's possible to BECOME attracted to someone once you get to know them. And, yes, at that point, it DOES become a choice because the attraction came AFTER THE FACT of choosing to spend significant time with that person. You can get past any supposed "biological programming" if you really want to, so I'm not buying it.


but did you find a woman so ugly you couldn't' imagine kissing her then later find her to be th most amazing gorgeous woman?

never said it was the only reason. and yeah plenty of people me include do become attracted to people after knowing them more, key is we never found them ugly, just not super attractive.
theres levels of attraction. but if you find someone so off putting I don't see personality changing that.

not going feel bad for having the very few standards I have.

I'd never waste someone else's time and emotions if i had no intention of a relationship with them. thats not fair to them.



sly279
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Dec 2013
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 16,181
Location: US

18 Apr 2015, 4:24 pm

rdos wrote:
AngelRho wrote:
I just don't put that much stock in attractiveness. I'm attracted to all sorts of women, even women who might actually like me back. Trouble is I'm permanently out of anyone's dating pool (by choice, I might add). But I've also been with women in the past I wasn't immediately attracted to, and I've even been open to dating women I had no intention whatsoever of forming a LTR with. Attractiveness DID play a small role in choosing to be with the person I married. But it's not the ONLY factor. I think it's possible to BECOME attracted to someone once you get to know them. And, yes, at that point, it DOES become a choice because the attraction came AFTER THE FACT of choosing to spend significant time with that person. You can get past any supposed "biological programming" if you really want to, so I'm not buying it.


Kind of my view as well. The typical attraction pattern of males is to be most attracted to teens and girls in their early 20s, and this is independent of a males age. Thus, for a male in his 50s, it would be very bad idea to use attractiveness as a factor in whom you'd select for a relationship. This is also what studies on this suggest. The male attractiveness perception plays little role in whom they form relationships with.


then why do most women say to date them you have to be attractive, handsome, thin and fit? dont' even see personality listed, just a bunch of attractiveness requirements.

also been attracted to quite a few older women :oops:



Outrider
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Feb 2014
Age: 25
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,007
Location: Australia

18 Apr 2015, 10:07 pm

Yes most N.T's find it easier to make friends and form relationships with the opposite sex at such a young age in their early teens.

Even shy and awkward N.T's still manage to have a few relationships.

This girl I had a crush on has already had 4 boyfriends and possibly a few girlfriends too (she likes both). This new girl I have a crush on has had at least 2 boyfriends.

There's no winning. N.T's in their late teens who have never had a relationship do exist but they are still fairly rare.

Not trying to stereotype but for aspies it is the opposite - Aspies in their late teens who HAVE had at least one relationship do exist but are fairly rare, while ones that have never had a relationship are the norm. This is not a generalization or stereotyping, actual studies have shown it.

The way I see it though, having a relationship in your EARLY teens is a very bad idea.

At that age you are both immature and cannot have a mature, serious relationship and it most likely will NOT last and you will probably break-up with them in just a few months to a year at the most.

This is why I want a relationship so badly now, though. I am 16 turning 17 and in my very last year of high school. I have wanted a girlfriend very badly throughout ALL of my high school years but never before have I wanted one this bad.

I feel I HAVE been patient and waited all these years. Now I feel this is my last chance.

Like I said, you are more likely to have a mature and longer lasting relationship in your LATE teens. Well, I feel that THIS is my time. No more standing around watching lucky N.T's get into relationships in earlier years. It's my turn to find a nice girl...the timing is so right. After high school I will have less chance to meet people my own age, it is harder...

That's my tip for young aspies - forget about getting a girlfriend when you're like 13 or 14. Just work on being friends with both boys and girls.

Then, in your very last year of high school, don't hold back.

Don't be needy or desperate, but make sure you still kick it into overdrive.

Use your first four years of high school to TRAIN and MASTER your social skills, and then use them.

Same thing with college or university. Use your first 3 years to learn to live life as a young adult now, gain social skills, learn to be able to hold down a job, whatever. Then use your last year to find love (and more friends, too).



darkphantomx1
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 1 Feb 2015
Age: 29
Posts: 1,293

19 Apr 2015, 7:34 am

Actually I think a good majority usually get their first boyfriend or girlfriend in high school but they arne't serious relationships. But most people usually are in at least 1 serious relationship by their early 20s. That is assuming you're a neurotypical.

I'm not sure about the statistic for aspies but it is most likely a lot lower. Crappy social skills, aloofness, lack of interest, weird interests, poor hygiene, or you just appear special. It wouldn't suprise at all if 8 out of 10 of those with high-functioning autism didnt have a gf in their teenage years. I think that most of us will be in our first relationship somewhere in our 20s.



314pe
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 7 Sep 2014
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,013

19 Apr 2015, 12:47 pm

AngelRho wrote:
You can get past any supposed "biological programming" if you really want to, so I'm not buying it.

You can. Unfortunately, for most people, I don't think there's enough good things about me to make it worth it.



AngelRho
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 Jan 2008
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,366
Location: The Landmass between N.O. and Mobile

19 Apr 2015, 1:04 pm

314pe wrote:
AngelRho wrote:
You can get past any supposed "biological programming" if you really want to, so I'm not buying it.

You can. Unfortunately, for most people, I don't think there's enough good things about me to make it worth it.

You can't do a thing about how other people feel. I wasn't referring to that. I was referring to your own "biological programming." You have a degree of control over who you decide to be with. Attractiveness is only a part of it, not the whole picture.

Sly is right up to a point, I think…no, there are certain physical attribute of women that would be automatic deal-breakers. There's nothing wrong with having standards. You SHOULD have standards and stick to them. The problem is when standards become unreasonable. I'm seeking someone with no children, no drug use, and no diseases. She should take care of her body and keep clean. I can do eccentric women…in fact, I prefer eccentric and odd. But I can't do psychotic. I can't do co-dependent. I can't do divorced. Race/ethnicity/religion doesn't matter for just hanging out, but when we're talking LTR, marriage, family, those kinds of things are going to start to matter a little more.

And while that does eliminate a large swath of potential mates, it still leaves a pretty deep, wide dating pool. I don't find that to be unreasonable. It's when you have a lengthy list of exact qualifications that a woman MUST meet EXACTLY and you have a lazer-focus on that specific type of woman that you kill your chances of ever being with someone. There's a stage of dating, I think, that you get to be picky. I discourage that at the beginning. It's something you progress to. It's not a starting point.



Jono
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 10 Jul 2008
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,606
Location: Johannesburg, South Africa

19 Apr 2015, 1:09 pm

PlasticManGNB wrote:
From what i have learned from my life with the normal populations is that, seemingly, they are not only guaranteed to get girlfriends/boyfriends, but to get them before they are 13!! Handsome/pretty ones. Meanwhile, we R-words will be lucky to get some ugly rag or rummy when we're in our thirties.

Do you guys think this is true, ore a mere stereotype, because I'm scared it's true, frightened.


I'm going to be 35 next week and I still don't have a girlfriend. How wonderful.



314pe
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 7 Sep 2014
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,013

19 Apr 2015, 1:35 pm

Do you guys think that most people on this site struggle with dating because they have too high standards?



The_Walrus
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator

User avatar

Joined: 27 Jan 2010
Age: 29
Gender: Male
Posts: 8,811
Location: London

19 Apr 2015, 1:48 pm

darkphantomx1 wrote:
Actually I think a good majority usually get their first boyfriend or girlfriend in high school but they arne't serious relationships. But most people usually are in at least 1 serious relationship by their early 20s. That is assuming you're a neurotypical.

Agreed.

I think the suggestion that "most NTs" have "dated" by the age of 14 is complete balderdash caused by cognitive biases. They might have had week-long "relationships" but that's little more than make-believe.

Serious relationships start to form at about 15, but I think you're looking at about 5% having a relationship before 17.

I'm also slightly bemused by the idea that it is easier for women to find mates than men. The gender ratio in humans is 1:1. Homosexuality is rare, asexuality is very rare, and polygamy is all but unheard of. Unless you live in an area that attracts male migrants but not female ones, it will be no easier for women to find mates, almost by definition.



314pe
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 7 Sep 2014
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,013

19 Apr 2015, 1:57 pm

The_Walrus wrote:
I'm also slightly bemused by the idea that it is easier for women to find mates than men. The gender ratio in humans is 1:1.

It's not. There is more men. There has to be more men to compensate for bad genes and dangerous activities men like to do.



WantToHaveALife
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Sep 2012
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,018
Location: California, United States

19 Apr 2015, 2:03 pm

from what I've observed, most NT guys will get their first girlfriend in high school or very early college, like before age 22.



Jono
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 10 Jul 2008
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,606
Location: Johannesburg, South Africa

19 Apr 2015, 2:49 pm

314pe wrote:
Do you guys think that most people on this site struggle with dating because they have too high standards?


No, the biggest reason why most people on this site struggle with dating is because they struggle with social skills in general, which is actually one of the diagnostic criteria for both Asperger syndrome as defined by the DSM 4 as well one of the diagnostic criteria for ASD as given in the DSM 5.



Jono
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 10 Jul 2008
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,606
Location: Johannesburg, South Africa

19 Apr 2015, 3:08 pm

The_Walrus wrote:
I'm also slightly bemused by the idea that it is easier for women to find mates than men. The gender ratio in humans is 1:1. Homosexuality is rare, asexuality is very rare, and polygamy is all but unheard of. Unless you live in an area that attracts male migrants but not female ones, it will be no easier for women to find mates, almost by definition.


The issue about getting dates is not only about the gender ratio. There's also the little fact that you need to have the necessary social skills as well as the issue of specific gender norms when it comes to dating. It's actually the gender norms which can make it easier for women to find dates than men, not whether there are more or less dates available. For example, it's generally expected that men are supposed take the initiative in asking women out on dates, rather than the other way round. So, that generally means that according to traditional gender expectations, men who are interested in a particular woman would generally be the ones who would take the initiative in asking out the woman while women who interested in a particular man would generally wait around for the man to ask her out and not take the initiative herself.

Now we're going to see replies saying "But women do ask men out, they're just not asking you" or "I ask men out but usually if I'm really interested" or "I ask men out, usually ask if I think he's too shy". Well, first of all, yes, there are some women who ask men out on a regular basis. However, if you're one of those women, you're one of the exceptions, in general most don't. As for the last 2 answers, if you only ask out men if you really interested rather than taking a chance or if you only ask them out if you think that they too shy to ask you, then that's exactly the point. You only ask on those two occasions because you still expect that the man will, generally speaking, ask you if he's interested.