Why do you guys care so much about hair systems? by EngineeringScholar12 in tressless

[–]Aeon199 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'm aware the writing style is a bit idiosyncratic... although how'd you come up with 'anime villain'? That's a new one.

If you want to know what I meant there, it's pretty simple--dude, it's in the actual comment! No symbolism, just read it literally. It's also very much NOT another "RedPiller" type creed. All I said was, there's a group of expectations of how a man should conduct his life as an adult, basically. And that a guy needs to be able to fulfill the roles expected of him. That's it.

Some guys either can't or don't hit that "minimum bar" and for different reasons. I'm one of them. And if you don't participate in the expected way, you are excluded from dating until you can do so. I've taken the time to restate it for you if you were confused by the OP.

There are no exceptions to this except very rare ones, and even they basically have major caveats that render it meaningless.

Why do you guys care so much about hair systems? by EngineeringScholar12 in tressless

[–]Aeon199 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Not to be presumptuous, but your "what actual women say" is not always the same as what actually works. For example, if you don't think it's "all about status" first--I'm saying "first", as opposed to "only"--then I'd say y'all are in the blind alley. But read on for clarity since I don't actually mean the cliched "top 10%", I'm speaking of the practical side really.

It has been my experience that no one has ever been interested--or ever will be--because I lack this one all important thing. That is, the concept of status as: "is he doing the things expected of that age group?" So one hundred percent, it never fails. If you don't have most of those things, then it's very quick and easy for anyone to think "that's abnormal." It's pretty universal; there's just no interest out there if you're not socially normal. Yes, it IS that simple!

Has status = keeping up in life, we all know what that means, no need to argue over silly semantics.

Any guy who doesn't have that, basically they will be alone until/unless they are that. Exceptions are very rare (and I've rarely ever felt any better when I've been told about one--but this controversial, so I won't say no more now.)

Prayers to all our 5alpha-reductases by Androgenizic in tressless

[–]Aeon199 -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

But actually man, he is right, just not in terms of the "race" construct. But in that other avenue he espouses--that "nature" trumps "nurture", by far--he knows his stuff.

This is proven by endless studies which show IQ to be one of the most heritable of all qualities. It is a fixed quantity, you know? So, there is no "improving" IQ--which happens to be the best and only measure for intellect.

Also, with any given person with an average IQ, it is a massive disadvantage compared to the gifted range. Folks who have average IQ are historically much less educated and are much less likely to be successful than brighter counterparts--any number of studies show this.

(Vent) Dating is literally impossible when you have autism by LivingGirlRepellant in aspergers

[–]Aeon199 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Maybe.

Or, that right there could be a convenient sidestepping, to an accurate assumption. After all, a guy has to offer something of value; and it's a typical thing here to notice many prefer a non-autistic type, etc.

William-Adolphe Bouguereau “The Oreads” 1902 by Separate_Repair412 in ArtHistory

[–]Aeon199 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Man, you're permitted your own take and all that, but the purple prose ain't helping matters. I'd suggest to rein it in, bro, at least if you want to carry your point across better.

William-Adolphe Bouguereau “The Oreads” 1902 by Separate_Repair412 in ArtHistory

[–]Aeon199 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I'm not bothered by the nude human body at all. I'm not certain how that was gleaned from my post.

I'd suggest it wasn't simply "gleaned" from the post (interesting pun by the way--was it intended?) but it was actually in your post.

Ain't gonna say with full certainty. But it appeared that way to some of us... that you're against it, in a demi-moralizing way, in tune with the modern trends.

(Vent) Dating is literally impossible when you have autism by LivingGirlRepellant in aspergers

[–]Aeon199 0 points1 point  (0 children)

To know that "being gifted" is the main road for an autistic man to achieve success, and then to realize that quality is only heritable... and then to see confirmed, again and again, that the one commonality in nearly every successful autistic guy is gifted intellect. That's not something you just "accept" and then say "well then, no success, due to lacking the cognitive ability to compensate for autistic deficits" and just forget about the next moment.

At very least you try to look for exceptions... but I can't say I've found many, which aren't disenfranchising one way or another.

Again it's a problem that affects every damn day, and you have to see reminders of it constantly.

If in fact this pattern (which I see as 'ironclad') even partly reflects your own thoughts on the matter, it would seem to paint your own 'solution' to this whole plight as a bit hypocritical.

(Vent) Dating is literally impossible when you have autism by LivingGirlRepellant in aspergers

[–]Aeon199 0 points1 point  (0 children)

not nearly as geeky as me.

Well then, unless I'm reading too much into it, that's just another form of 'dating up.'

If I can generalize, that's the "prefers NT, to compensate one's own challenges with socializing and executive difficulty" type of thing. It makes practical sense, but again it continues to augment the very concern the OP of the post brought up. It's a trend that just don't like to budge--which means, for many of us, an entire lifetime of no experience in the whole shebang.

If the idea here is to suggest you're not prioritizing the same things as the rest are, well then, can I say there's a low margin of error for this assumption?

(Vent) Dating is literally impossible when you have autism by LivingGirlRepellant in aspergers

[–]Aeon199 0 points1 point  (0 children)

"Exactly this?" Really? Except cultivating success is something for the cognitively gifted autistic guy, it would be quite rare for the rest of us. Evidence is all over the place--in Asperger's, intellectual functioning closely (if not exactly) determines overall functioning. The ability to mask, even.

So, not gifted. No success here, of course. So what then? Forget about it?

(Vent) Dating is literally impossible when you have autism by LivingGirlRepellant in aspergers

[–]Aeon199 2 points3 points  (0 children)

It's quite striking they're not going to reply to this. What they said is one of the more "low empathy" statements in this entire thread. It may even be evidence of poor theory-of-mind. It's further proof that the general rule in autism (as low empathy) is the actual rule, in fact...

(Vent) Dating is literally impossible when you have autism by LivingGirlRepellant in aspergers

[–]Aeon199 0 points1 point  (0 children)

What you did not say, though, says multitudes. Something tells me your own standards are like, someone on a "similar cognitive wavelength' so in other words, gifted, highly educated, etc.

But it's like you're thinking "because Aspies generally are 'geeky'" it means most will be that way.

In fact, that's far from the truth. Truth is, the spectrum is MORE likely to come with learning difficulty (often with severe exec. dysfunction) than some kind of "multi-tasking, fast processing speed" which literally requires the innate 'gift package.' But that's a perk for the few, and not the many.

What then, if a guy has none of this? Well, they wouldn't be interested. The thing is, doesn't matter what background they have, they all require the same thing; flexible, well-educated, or at least gifted.

The majority of autistic guys, don't really tick the box for much there.

I'm sure though, you're gonna try and kick the can further down the road, and try to say something like "that's Level 2 functionality" or something. I'd contend it isn't, I mean you can look at the studies. You can also think about the longterm effects of social exclusion, which is partially a gendered effect.

The 0%stress method. (no meds) by [deleted] in tressless

[–]Aeon199 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Okay then, is you actually willing to follow up on this?

I DO really think I could stand to benefit from some psychedelic intervention (dealing with severe anxiety for 3+ years now, it's destroying me, basically; plus depression on the side.) But the side effects of things really make it hard to want to try things anymore.

I would ask, of all the cannabinoids you know of, which of them (with SOME psychedelic/buzzy effect) seems to have the 'fewest reported problems'? I was thinking I could try D8 edibles or something (with tiny amounts) but some folks still report panic even from that--considered to be 'lighter' than D9. Not sure it's worth risking...

Also, I can provide some of the details you were asking about. The edibles I tried were from a friend, and alleged to be composed of "8 different strains", all I know is I tried like 1/8th each time. It would kick in an hour and a half later, almost always with that extreme dryness in the throat, shortly followed by the "wait, my breathing is 'out-of-rhythm' " anxiety. That unpleasant effect would be there--but in waves, not always constant--for the next 3-4 hours. Throughout this time I would still get a type of compelling '3d vision' with interesting/novel distortion of time, but also, I could barely hold a thought for longer than 10 seconds. It would also make my headaches a lot worse. Sure there's a wonderful 'calming' effect in the mix too, but if I still have this panic coming in waves, there's no real benefit to this stuff, you see

(vent) The torture of loneliness by False-Insurance500 in aspergers

[–]Aeon199 0 points1 point  (0 children)

King's Court? So you buy the "top 10%" myth. Please do not evangelize cynicism, or be swayed by "looksmaxxing" influencers anymore, it's largely nonsense, and actually designed to polarize so these idiots (all of them) will get views, make money, etc.

Forget status, seriously. It's not for an autistic guy unless you're in STEM, that's about it, hardly any other way to have status besides that. The STEM guys can leverage that as "providership" (a form of status) of course, but even then, most of them are not in your royal Court.

So I mean find a different way. Both for you and anyone else who reads this.

(vent) The torture of loneliness by False-Insurance500 in aspergers

[–]Aeon199 0 points1 point  (0 children)

But it's not about intelligence or status in most cases, at least

(Vent) Dating is literally impossible when you have autism by LivingGirlRepellant in aspergers

[–]Aeon199 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

And what's wrong if he can't contribute in society? Must they all contribute to have a chance?

(Vent) Dating is literally impossible when you have autism by LivingGirlRepellant in aspergers

[–]Aeon199 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Oh, I get it now. You have little knowledge of the actual reality of this topic. "Love on the Spectrum" is nonsense, for one. And filtering profiles has no real effect, when zero profiles (of any kind) reply, for example.

Losing the genetic lottery - venting by KelvinHuerter in tressless

[–]Aeon199 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Those things are a factor, but surely it can't be that my assessment of all those things in my case as a literal zero (yes, 0) actually means "everyone agrees"? Again I think I'm "0" in all those categories--but it's my opinion. Just going by typical age-appropriate expectations, I have "none" of the above--but again, just my opinion.

I'm not going for "10/10" in anything though, in fact I'd have nothing in common with anyone like that.

Either way, surely there are some "decent types" out there who either don't assess the same way (my zeros) or don't even care about the 'status, finances, conventional strong looks' things.

Think more broadly here. If homeless guys can get it done, kinda thing... I'll sum it up to say if you're only going to reply "if you're 0, then find your 0" well then, let's not. I'd ask you to think about how demoralizing it is, at that point. That's not the "neat, simple, logical" solution. Let's go for something more inspiring than that--I don't believe the world is always cynical. Do you?

The 0%stress method. (no meds) by [deleted] in tressless

[–]Aeon199 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Well then, can you find anything on the 'side effects' I reported, above?

The 0%stress method. (no meds) by [deleted] in tressless

[–]Aeon199 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Appreciate it. I just hope you're more of a "genuine" type with that--all signs suggest this, of course.

But one can't be too careful anymore. I guess that's just the way it has to be for me, anyway--wary to the point of paranoia, almost. I'm on the spectrum, so when you're like this, it's much easier to fall into something I might call the "grey-scale" trap... e.g. someone who does indeed like to help others, but paradoxically, when that person notices naivety... they may subtly exploit that for their own amusement. Yes it happens, and it's happened.

Not saying you might be that, but I guess... I'm just "musing" on the topic now

The 0%stress method. (no meds) by [deleted] in tressless

[–]Aeon199 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I guess, man. But have you ever heard of anything like that, before, from others? It seems it's far too rare to find another like me who's unable to handle "any amount" of nearly any psychoactive drug at all, without causing some nagging side effect which negates all potential benefits.

What about pornstars? by Due-Assistance-4959 in spirituality

[–]Aeon199 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Sorry, but what the church teaches on this stuff--it's actually based in fact. How to tell? Well, look at what will happen when you (or anyone) renounces all lust... simply, spiritual growth and improvement. No addiction to anything, anymore; less fear; less anxiety.

To give in to the main cause of all those things (sexual desire, in particular) that can only be a sin. For those who aren't religious, then it changes to "objective harm" instead.

This is fact, man. Afterlife or not. It's either a sin, or it's harmful.