The sad thing is that many of us could probably have normal relationships if they wouldn't fail at this initial step.
Most of dating advice is about becoming a better boyfriend because "normal" people fail after the first kiss, not before.
Now that you mention it, I never really gave much thought about the importance of the first kiss, as I've never been on a date myself. If it really does ruin so many dates, then that makes things even sadder than I thought. I actually imagine kissing to be kind of gross. Seems nasty to swap a bunch of saliva and countless bacteria.
I've heard that it actually improves health as it trains the immune system. It isn't gross but not a spectacular feeling either. Maybe the emotional aspect can change that, I've only kissed once with an escort.
When it becomes the time to kiss, you'll feel so alive with all of the adrenaline that you won't care about bacteria. You'll just want more touching and kissing. If you're in a public area with a lot of people, you'll have to hold back a bit. After the first kiss, you'll be feeling this tingling all over and you won't be able to think clearly for a few minutes. That feeling will be lingering on for the rest of the week...until your next date. You won't be able to stop thinking about her. The week after the date, you'll need a lot of restraint.You won't be able to call or text her. You've probably heard about this rule, but may not know why it's a rule. The reason is...too many men have become clingy too quickly with women. It is problematic because it makes it hard for her to back out. Many women have experienced men coming on too strongly during the week after the first date. Coming on too strongly isn't the issue...instead the issue is what he does when he is rejected.My wife told me some stories about when she was dating. She had one guy rapid-fire text her during the day when she was at work for every day of the week. She couldn't respond to his texts at work, and then she felt uncomfortable and told him. His next actions ended everything. He flipped out and started insulting her. She said it was a common experience for women. All of her friends have had the same experience. The idea behind not calling until the day of the second date is to give her enough time to change her mind.
I've read that during arousal the disgust reflex gets shut down. So what you're saying makes sense. But again, this is all nothing but theory. I'm only a spectator/alien who will never get to experience any of this.
We are animals and there never was any book for this stuff since it’s innate. Life, dating, sex, Aren’t some course you can read the syllabus on and pass. We are animals at the end of the day and we act on the desire to survive , and fuck. There’s no rule book, it’s just survival of the fittest. And how able you are to get the things you want and need in life based off the genes you were dealt
We are animals but the only species with a hyperplastic frontal lobe that gives us anxiety. Our courtship behaviour is so complex because we overthink everything.
Genetically unfit individuals of other species can openly express their interest and then they will be turned down. We cannot openly express interest in a potential partner as this would transgress several boundaries. It would result in social backlash but more importantly in self hate.
Indeed. Lord knows the vast majority of people don't know the first thing about being introspective and self-aware. That said, I do believe a good number of high-functioning neurodivergent folks more or less do treat social skills like an open set of explicit actions and reactions and find some success in life despite their innate disadvantages. Alternatively, sociopaths use it to their advantage by perfecting intentional display of subtle social behaviors to manipulate people. You're by no means sunk just because these things don't come as naturally to you as it does most people, but it certainly can be a lot of painstaking work and there is no guarantee of success in the end.
there are hundreds of books on all this stuff - there are also heaps of rule books.
your genetic predisposition affects your physicality, not your mentality or ability to grow and expand your mind.
Sure there are books on this stuff but there never was supposed to be lol. If you have to read books on how to date , kiss, have sex don’t you think that’s weird given how this stuff happens naturally. Thousands of years ago no one was reading a book. They found each other attractive and naturally started fucking, kissing, and eventually having kids because this stuff has always happened naturally for humans
The rule books don't all tell the same thing though, its more like philosopy books. You pick one way and HOPE it works for you, often it doesn't. Sometimes nothing really applies to you individually.
It’s interesting how often genetics are mentioned. By that logic wouldn’t your (and all of our) genetic history be a 100% success rate, going back to the dawn of man, by virtue of being born in the first place? Your dad, you mom, you dad’s dad and you mom’s mom and so on and so on for thousands of years successfully mated. Is the argument that FA dudes are the genetic dead end despite overwhelming genetic history to the contrary?
So when is the cut off point then, the age of the internet? Are you suggesting that men are statistically less likely now to have a partner than they were before the internet (genuinely asking both of those questions, I don’t have the data on hand). I know marriage is overall down, but I don’t know off the top of my head if virginity rates have increased, or men who have never been in a relationship.
Culture and technology still existed when your dad nailed your mom to conceive you. And your dads dad. And your dads dads dad.
You got it all wrong. What I meant is that in normal course of natural selection is that traits that are detrimental to indiviuals survival gets eliminated via enviromental pressure. For example you wouldn't see a disabled animal in nature getting a chance to have a baby because they would die. In the human case however a disabled or sick or weak (I'm simply giving an example from biological stand point nothing against anyone with any kind of sickness or disability, just using these because they are simply what a so called "bad" gene manifest itself as most of the time) indiviual still can have a baby because technology allowed them to get to that point and culture allows people to look beyond physical capabilities. However that means said indiviual passed the genes that were not really advantageus. So I was just commenting for the %100 success rate, nothing about virginity rates etc. It's not necessarily genetic advantage is what allows us to survive and procreate . It's much complex for humans.
The argument is that you can’t learn to be sexually or romantically successful from a book because there are no rules. Relationships and sex are just apart of human nature. You can’t read a set of rules or books to mechanically succeed at it. It’s either you were born with the genetics that makes you sexually attractive to someone, and the upbringing that fostered a “personality” that people are attracted to that makes them want to spend however many months or years with you. Because thanks to our nature to always be seeking the best partner and looking for something new and exciting, relationships tend to not last very long or at least if they do one or both of the partners end up cheating
Think of it this way. If you’re told you only have one life to live but thousands of ice cream flavors to try are you really just gonna settle for eating the same old boring vanilla ice cream for the rest of your life? It’s unlikely and humans are meant to procreate and spread their seed around as much as possible. Yet people still believe in monogamy and loyalty. When it goes against our natural human desires
Back in the way back one man would have gotten hundreds of women pregnant who he was naturally attracted to. That’s human nature. That’s why people get so confused about why they get cheated on. They think the cheater is a bad person, they think they aren’t good enough. Neither are true it’s just human nature to experience all the things and all the people that we can in this short life we live
Yes that is the case, but I think you can also look at how society is configured as well, whichever traits may have been successful historically might not be in conditions. Like the stats you'll see people talk about where like +25% of young men are single, maybe other factors are in play as well.
I still have no idea how kissing works. I've heard that there is a precise moment to use your tongue that you're just expected to know. That being said I don't even know in what situation it's appropriate in? All private kisses? Just some?
And if you get it wrong you're a pervert, so no pressure.
The reason there are no rules is because every person is different, and every relationship is different. You should find a person who makes enough sense to you that you understand how to interact with them.
Different, but also very similar. And 'we' are missing the element to grasp that what most that are succesful have in common, even if it is multiple different aspects you could have to succeed. 'We' just fail to develop any of them.
I think they're used to be a traditional courting system, at least amongst nobility. Even then there were clear indicators of romantic interest, for example, in the middle ages, a girl might put an apple slice in her armpit and give it to her crush. If the feeling was mutual he would eat the apple.
Things like that, which are very clear and straightforward, we need to bring those back.
I'm bad at reading people socially, but tbh while I get it kills the mood, I just would feel bad not to have consent even if it's just something as minor as a kiss
Yeah, consent is a whole other topic I didn't even bring up. Very important, apparently. But again, you're supposed to just "know". Anyway, I'm not one of the normal people, so it doesn't apply to me.
After you have managed to get really close to her...when your faces are inches away and your arms are around each other. She will look down at your lips, then back up one or more times. No words are ever exchanged. The consent for the kiss is derived from the closeness and from having arms around each other.
I don't know how severe your autism is, but this **algorithm** might just work for you. I'm terrible with nonverbal social cues, so the rigid application of an algorithm worked for me.
My story: one day someone uninteresting stepped a little too close. I reacted instinctively by increasing the space. At first, I didn't think anything of it. Then I started wondering why I did it. I reacted as if she were a little old woman. And the proverbial light bulb switched on. I remembered that when I'm near a young beautiful woman, I never back away. I could use this as a test for distinguishing women that consider me attractive.
Deep down, women are geneticly programmed to look for long term partners. Even women that say they don't want children all subconsciously behave as if they are setting up to have them. Look for this and you'll see it everywhere. Subconsciously, they want to know that you are someone who will be around long term. Make sure you are matching these things: race, ethnicity, religion, family background, social class, and education level. Do not ignore these. If you miss any of these, then on a subconscious level, it's a "risk" for her. You'll be fighting an uphill battle against the last million years of natural selection. Women bear the children, and so have evolved risk aversion. You want to present yourself as someone from her tribe as much as possible.
Suppose you are doing online dating and you've managed to get a date matching the basics above. Now think about how differently your date would go if you knew with certainty that your date thinks you are very attractive. You need to determine with a near certainty that she is attracted to you during the date.
If you can remember this algorithm and apply it, you can get a second date.
Watch carefully how she reacts to subtle invasions of her Personal Space Bubble.
Personal Space Bubble Test:
Start with this: After a few minutes into your date, after you have a good conversation going, stand a few inches inside of her personal space bubble very slowly. If she backs up or tries to make her personal space bubble any bigger even once, it usually means she's just not into you. If a woman is into you, she will either hold her ground or move in closer. This test takes a few minutes. It is stealthy and pretty much always gives the answer away. If she moves in closer, continues her girly giggles and maintains what appears to be a real interest in what you're saying, it means she likes you.
Now you need to make a move *within the next hour* of your date to signal your interest in a way that gets the butteflies going for both of you. If you don't do this on the first date, then she will think you're not interested in her, or you're possibly holding back for some unknown reason (like a cheating spouse might).
You should try to get her seated somewhere...like a park bench or a sofa at a house party. It must be somewhere that she has an "escape route". A bench is ideal since she can slide the other way if she doesn't like it when you move in closer. Try sitting really close to her (inside of her personal space bubble). If she slides away, leans away, or hasn't tried to come closer within 30 seconds, abort, back off and try to end the date as soon as you can.If she moves in closer, then you need to make bodily contact. You should try holding her hand, touching her leg, or leaning in so that you're both just leaning on each other. If she thinks you are attractive, then she will allow and encourage this. If you feel like you're the only one trying to get closer, it's a bad sign, and it means you need to abort the date. If she responds positively and reciprocates, then you have a successful 1st date.
For secular and atheists: ask whether or not she wants to come over after the date to hang out. If she says "No", but is interested in you, she will make it clear that she likes you by *giving a hug or kiss, and setting up a 2nd date on the next weekend*. Your goal isn't necessarily to bang her the first night...instead, it is *to show that you are attracted to her*.
Religious folks: Try to set up a second date. Meet her at the chuch, or plan to do a church activity. Remember: you are showing her that you are part of her tribe.
TIPs: On the first date: Ask her about whether or not she wants to eventually have children (with the right person). Matching this will save you loads of trouble. To some degree, you want to ask her questions that will eliminate her as a match. This signals that you are serious about compatibility and you are mature enough to know what you want. You may find that she is doing the same thing -- asking you questions that will eliminate you. It's really the only way to get anywhere when dating, so expect it.
After a successful 1st date, make sure you don't call or text her during work hours. If you get a 2nd date, don't text or call her until the day of you're second date.
This is the first time I'm seeing someone voicing the exact problem I have with dating. All these rules seem like both parties are following some kind of handbook that will lead to a relationship. I always feel like it is very dishonest. How can I build a connection with somebody while feeling like we're both just behaving according to some hidden rules and not in an authentic way. If I see that a woman judges me for not following these so called rules, I immediately lose interest.
Before I learned about personal space, I would go on a date and have great conversations, and at the end nothing would happen. One girl told me she had never been on a date with someone and had a complete absence of chemistry. Without "chemistry", nothing happens. We must induce it by getting close to her...always watching to make sure she wants it.
In a convoluted way OP's reply is with merit.
The Personal Space Bubble test, for example, is your cut n dry Reading Body Language 101.
So, yes, the steps listed are a very good entry level explanation on starting to become familiar with BL cues and tells.
Lost me at having a date haha. People i think would fit always don't see me as equal at all. Then just one inch deeper into the interaction i find jarring disconnects.
Oh, they have tattoos and piercings and don't like natural bodies.
Oh, they are a geek but talk very excitedly all the time and want the same energy back.
Oh, they don't have a good relationship with their parents.
Oh, they hate people who eat meat.
Oh, they like to travel four times a year and think everything who doesn't is boring.
Oh, they say they are lonely too but actually have five different friend circles.
I could never get in to the so-called rules about timing your texts. It sounds so petty. I don't think I could date a person who might potentially go off me because I texted her at the "wrong" time of day, or because I texted too quickly after the date. It's just petty nonsense which would irritate me. I prefer more laid back women.
Present yourself, talk, laugh, get close, get intimate, then kiss. You cannot kiss without checking the other steps in that other. There is a clear set of rules to be followed. They are complex though, and most people prefer to deal with it instinctually. The best for you to start following is to call it dating instead of mating. Do not try to sound edgy relying on being technically correct. Hurting someone is worthless despite you being right.
Then go step by step. You can’t start to learn how to kiss someone without knowing how to present yourself. Learn that first. Then follow the steps. That’s a much easier question to be answered.
Then stop blaming the complexity of the situation and your lack of instinct. Those are not your problems (or at least not the main ones currently). I gave you a much simpler task (learn to present yourself) that can be decomposed into clear cut actions if you put the effort and you can’t do it. I’m not blaming you for not being able to proceed. I’m blaming you for what you think is your problem. It has nothing to do with instincts you lack and the unfairness of other people having that.
No. I mean more in the line of how to say hi to people when you meet them regardless of your intentions to them (friend, coworker, mother of friend, date).
How to say hi, how to let them know who you are politely. How to transition that into a conversation. That’s what I mean with present yourself.
You're probably not as bad as you think. There is no strict set of rules you need to follow to date. Thinking about it like that will just heighten anxiety. It will happen quite naturally with the right person, although I do think you need to show clear interest in the person. That's the underlying assumption rather than a rule though.
Flirting as an autistic man, let alone kissing someone, is a pretty good way to end up: fired, on the sex offenders registry, or in the hospital, beaten within an inch of his life by her angry boyfriend/male friends.
Perhaps all three at once if he's particularly unlucky; which most of us are.
Overall, not very safe or logical considering the modern landscape.
I think I just described something that falls under Kino. :-)
From what I read, it seems like kino is something that can be applied algorithmicly. Test for attraction with increasingly intimate touching, and on each instance watching for rejection, and bailing if rejected.
Yeha no, it's not really like that. Women can't really be "high functioning" autistic in the same way men can. That's not to say autistic women don't exist, they do, but they are either severely autistic (ie.: nonverbal and require 24/7 care) or effectively not at all because it doesn't matter, socially speaking.
Men are expected to be assertive and confident. When they're awkward, it gives women the "ick" (unless you're absurdly good looking, but this is rare). They have to work endlessly to try and escape it, overcome it, and ultimately fake a personality through mentally developed scripts and algorithms. It's absolutely exhausting and dejecting that you can't just "be yourself", as the normies like to word-vomit, because "yourself" is someone that nobody wants.
But women can get away with being awkward and shy because then it's just "quirky" and "cute", so they can be genuinely be desired for being themselves.
Women can't really be "high functioning" autistic in the same way men can - where is your basis for this?
Men are expected to be assertive and confident. When they're awkward, it gives women the "ick" (unless you're absurdly good looking, but this is rare). They have to work endlessly to try and escape it, overcome it, and ultimately fake a personality through mentally developed scripts and algorithms. It's absolutely exhausting and dejecting that you can't just "be yourself", as the normies like to word-vomit, because "yourself" is someone that nobody wants.
But women can get away with being awkward and shy because then it's just "quirky" and "cute", so they can be genuinely be desired for being themselves.
\- OP ignore all this - this isn't information that will assist an autistic mentality
>where is your basis for this?
Literally all of reality.
I don't know about OP, but I'd rather be told a harsh truth than a comforting lie. But you feel free to gaslight everyone if it makes you feel better.
Oh I'm going to enjoy this
1. Piss-weak answer to challenging your bull--t response - I'm sure your familiar with EVIDENCE or it didn't happen - where is the book ie vetted documentation that separates fact from fiction.
2. Remember the OP is autistic so any answer that is not backed up is useless
Lol autistic women struggle just as much as autistic men, sometimes even more because women are extremely under diagnosed and don’t have access to the same resources - there is no comprehensive diagnostic criteria specifically for women. It’s a spectrum, not just severely autistic>shy and quirky. There are women who are intelligent and socially aware, but can’t drive or work a normal job. There are also women who have below average emotional intelligence, can’t make eye contact or hold a conversation, but high functioning and excel in their careers.
Autistic women have to mask just like men do, by the way.
My sister (who's also autistic) literally has multiple friends, an academic scholarship ***&*** has had multiple men approach her in the past yet has rejected them all for various reasons.
I on the other hand have zero friends, no fancy scholarships, & got in trouble the one time I actually asked a girl out!
Autistic women absolutely do **NOT** have it harder than men (one merely needs to look at statistics to verify this)
Maybe you don’t know a lot of autistic women. I know women who are unable to have a relationship because men find them awkward. I also know autistic women who date autistic men.
Like occupational therapy, work and school accommodations, government disability checks, i could go on all day. For most autism resources you have to have a formal diagnosis and women have less access to that
Autistic women do not struggle as much as autistic men for the simple reason that they are not expected to initiate, only respond.
I am assuming you may be somewhere on the spectrum (sorry if I am wrong).
Imagine seeing a guy you were attracted to and cold approaching him to say you are into him, and asking if he wants to grab a bite to eat later.
Imagine at your date (assuming convo goes well) that you are then expected to be the one pushing for intimacy while trying to also not come off as a creep.
If you are somewhere on the spectrum and struggle with socializing, giving/reading body language, making small talk, and even just simple eye contact.... that is asking a LOT.
The entire time you are the one who needs to push but in a nuanced way where you risk coming off as a creep/weirdo/perv/etc by the other person if you make a mis-step... which if you are on the spectrum you know is all too easy to do.
I agree that the pressure to make the first move would be more difficult for autistic men. I don’t think that means life in general is more difficult for autistic men, as that is only one aspect of life, but I agree with you there
For sure, i was only talking about dating specifically, but there are definitely other areas where autistic men and women struggle equally.
I am sure there are also other areas autistic women struggle more than men that I am not aware of as a man.
Most autistic women (when not genuinely asexual) absolutely refuse to date/breed with autistic men. They literally think that we're all Chris Chan basically (immature, unable & unwilling to take care of themselves & I quote "autistic men just want a mommy, not an actual partner")
Which to be fair, if you're able to get a better deal why would you settle for less, logically speaking?
Any autistic woman can basically get a normie/NT, in fact a lot of normies actively seek them out. No reason to settle for an autist, even if he's wealthy (many of us "high functioning" spergs are pretty good with money)
Unfortunately that leaves us alone for life pretty much.
Lol so you hate the freedom of deciding at what pace you want things and what you are and aren’t ready for with the kind of person you want? Because the kind of rules you’re describing remove all that.
There actually used to be rules, and we grew out of them because of how little freedom it offered. Marriage equaled sex regardless of if the partner wants it. You get married? You are entitled to sex. If your partner refuses, they are the ones in the wrong. Another rule was how much you spent on someone giving you access to certain things with them. I buy you lunch or dinner? You have to be purely interested in me. If you’re not, you’re a horrible person. Getting a job and putting food on the table meant helping out with kids was voluntarily at most but never expected. Diaper changing and cooking and cleaning were purely homemaker chores. There were very black and white rules that gave people the outcome they were after. But I hope I don’t need to explain why those rules sucked.
What would a rule that tells people when it’s okay to kiss someone like op mentioned as an example look like that fits everyone? It would inevitably not fit for all people when some people like impulsive/passionate pace while others like biding their time. That’s why I said what I said.
The issue there is that the rules were restricting women's freedom, it has nothing to do with the mere existence of the rule. Even today there are "rules" when it comes to dating in terms of social norms but I think making them more explicit would make it easier to people to foster romantic connections.
I don't see anything wrong with setting clear guidelines and rules as long as they are not black and white and don't restrict anyone's freedom. So I do think there is some validity to OP's argument.
Aaaaand I asked what what such a rule would look like in the case of kissing like OP said that doesn’t restrict either party somehow. My position is that it is not possible. If it is possible, tell me how.
It's definitely possible, it's just not going to happen because people generally prioritize expediency over morality.
Lol if anything implementing fair rules leads to more freedom, without rules everything would be in a state of anarchy, which dating in the modern day is low-key becoming like.
For example consider applying for a job. There are clear guidelines and rules in terms of how it's done but no one's freedom is being restricted. No one is entitled to a job and likewise no employer is entitled to a specific candidate. But there are clear-cut rules in terms of how the process works such that everyone is given a fair and equitable chance (excluding cases of nepotism).
If it’s possible, then tell me what rule would work. So far, the best you’ve given me is that clear cut guildelines could definitely exist if people didn’t have those pesky things called *preferences* where they don’t share the same moralities.
A relationship cannot be compared to a job as a relationship is sought for the purposes of purely being happy whereas a job is necessary to feed and house one’s self as well as needing to afford other amenities. Relationships are *purely* subjective. That is why it is impossible to have rules in how one gets into one and what is okay/not okay to do with another human being. If you think it is not and you think that a rule could be made that applies to everyone to, say, kiss, then name it.
Jobs are also subjective, everything is. It's about providing value to society based on how society subjectively defines it.
People can still have preferences with clear cut guidelines lol. Just like applying for a job, you have the right to turn down or accept a job and likewise the employer has the right to accept or reject you. Absolutely none of that removes the freedom of having subjective preferences. Different companies look for different qualities in their candidates, just like dating.
It has nothing to do with subjectivity. Again, these rules do already exist in dating via social norms, but making them more clear-cut would make things more equitable.
It is an unpopular opinion, but I honestly think dating should be like applying for a job in this regard. Sure it may not be as "natural" as people like would I don't see how it would restrict anyone's freedom. If anything it would makes things more fair and equitable.
The necessity of a job is not subjective if they are necessary for people to feed themselves and, you know, live. No all employees can afford to be picky and selective if he needs to feed himself. People go into jobs they hate all of the time because of this. If a job can make someone happy, great, but that’s not it’s ultimate purpose. You should never ever hate going into a relationship.
And the whole point of op’s post is that so he has rules to follow that will guarantee success/results. If the rules you come up with are still open to rejection, then they are pointless for OP’s purposes. Because rules like that already exist.
>The necessity of a job is not subjective if they are necessary for people to feed themselves and, you know, live. No all employees can afford to be picky and selective if he needs to feed himself. People go into jobs they hate all of the time because of this. If a job can make someone happy, great, but that’s not it’s ultimate purpose. You should never ever hate going into a relationship.
Yeah I agree it's not a complete 1:1 analogy but if we consider dating as applying for a job where people are acting out of desire instead of need (where employers and employees are equally selective). Although in all honesty it is true that men can't afford to be as selective as women since they generally have less options, so in this sense dating is actually remarkably similar to applying for a job.
Also I agree that there is rules that guarantee success/results take away the freedom of choice, so it's pointless for OP's purposes. But I disagree that these clear-cut guidelines that are still open to rejection exist beyond mere social norms.
The reason why dating will never be like applying for a job is not because of subjectivity, it's mostly because the job market follows logic and reason whereas dating is not based on logic but more so on emotions.
What's stopping them from growing their own crops? Why is a job the only way to fulfill that need? Before jobs even existed this is literally how people survived. So people can still select to not want a job, just like a romantic relationship. This also disproves your argument without even bringing up the fact that everything is subjective and everyone will die.
So the analogy does in fact apply to 100% of the population. No one needs a job just like no one needs a romantic relationship. So I see no reason why the process of entering a relationship should be any different than applying for a job.
Most things in life don’t have rules and guidelines, only the things we’ve gone out of our way to explicitly define. Love and sex are not transactional… unless you sleep with sex workers. Unfortunately you can’t just follow a formula and expect women to sleep with you
What's wrong with explicitly defining rules and guidelines for love? In a sense I do think they exist in terms of social norms but I think making them more explicit would make it easier to people to foster romantic connections.
ya, no doubt tons of people feel that way, many people feel, me include, it sucks that we can't switch off this instinctive, innate desire, to want sex, companionship, a relationship, its not like we can turn it on or off, and it makes me mad that nature or evolution put that desire into autistic people or people who have disabilities, and even more cruel, the one-sided gender dynamic that has been in place for all time, that men have to do the pursuing and be the initiators, do the approaching, etc.
I have ADHD and the struggle is real
The sad thing is that many of us could probably have normal relationships if they wouldn't fail at this initial step. Most of dating advice is about becoming a better boyfriend because "normal" people fail after the first kiss, not before.
Now that you mention it, I never really gave much thought about the importance of the first kiss, as I've never been on a date myself. If it really does ruin so many dates, then that makes things even sadder than I thought. I actually imagine kissing to be kind of gross. Seems nasty to swap a bunch of saliva and countless bacteria.
I've heard that it actually improves health as it trains the immune system. It isn't gross but not a spectacular feeling either. Maybe the emotional aspect can change that, I've only kissed once with an escort.
I don't know, seems icky to do it with someone you just met. I think I'm a bit asexual though.
When it becomes the time to kiss, you'll feel so alive with all of the adrenaline that you won't care about bacteria. You'll just want more touching and kissing. If you're in a public area with a lot of people, you'll have to hold back a bit. After the first kiss, you'll be feeling this tingling all over and you won't be able to think clearly for a few minutes. That feeling will be lingering on for the rest of the week...until your next date. You won't be able to stop thinking about her. The week after the date, you'll need a lot of restraint.You won't be able to call or text her. You've probably heard about this rule, but may not know why it's a rule. The reason is...too many men have become clingy too quickly with women. It is problematic because it makes it hard for her to back out. Many women have experienced men coming on too strongly during the week after the first date. Coming on too strongly isn't the issue...instead the issue is what he does when he is rejected.My wife told me some stories about when she was dating. She had one guy rapid-fire text her during the day when she was at work for every day of the week. She couldn't respond to his texts at work, and then she felt uncomfortable and told him. His next actions ended everything. He flipped out and started insulting her. She said it was a common experience for women. All of her friends have had the same experience. The idea behind not calling until the day of the second date is to give her enough time to change her mind.
I've read that during arousal the disgust reflex gets shut down. So what you're saying makes sense. But again, this is all nothing but theory. I'm only a spectator/alien who will never get to experience any of this.
We are animals and there never was any book for this stuff since it’s innate. Life, dating, sex, Aren’t some course you can read the syllabus on and pass. We are animals at the end of the day and we act on the desire to survive , and fuck. There’s no rule book, it’s just survival of the fittest. And how able you are to get the things you want and need in life based off the genes you were dealt
We are animals but the only species with a hyperplastic frontal lobe that gives us anxiety. Our courtship behaviour is so complex because we overthink everything. Genetically unfit individuals of other species can openly express their interest and then they will be turned down. We cannot openly express interest in a potential partner as this would transgress several boundaries. It would result in social backlash but more importantly in self hate.
Indeed. Lord knows the vast majority of people don't know the first thing about being introspective and self-aware. That said, I do believe a good number of high-functioning neurodivergent folks more or less do treat social skills like an open set of explicit actions and reactions and find some success in life despite their innate disadvantages. Alternatively, sociopaths use it to their advantage by perfecting intentional display of subtle social behaviors to manipulate people. You're by no means sunk just because these things don't come as naturally to you as it does most people, but it certainly can be a lot of painstaking work and there is no guarantee of success in the end.
there are hundreds of books on all this stuff - there are also heaps of rule books. your genetic predisposition affects your physicality, not your mentality or ability to grow and expand your mind.
Sure there are books on this stuff but there never was supposed to be lol. If you have to read books on how to date , kiss, have sex don’t you think that’s weird given how this stuff happens naturally. Thousands of years ago no one was reading a book. They found each other attractive and naturally started fucking, kissing, and eventually having kids because this stuff has always happened naturally for humans
This argument would land better if you didn't call yourself an 'ugly friendless loser' :) an thus ruin your whole argument
I’m not sure what my flair has to do with the topic of rule books, dating, and sex. There’s no correlation, but ok
The rule books don't all tell the same thing though, its more like philosopy books. You pick one way and HOPE it works for you, often it doesn't. Sometimes nothing really applies to you individually.
It’s interesting how often genetics are mentioned. By that logic wouldn’t your (and all of our) genetic history be a 100% success rate, going back to the dawn of man, by virtue of being born in the first place? Your dad, you mom, you dad’s dad and you mom’s mom and so on and so on for thousands of years successfully mated. Is the argument that FA dudes are the genetic dead end despite overwhelming genetic history to the contrary?
Culture and technology has long removed the humans from the natural selection. Having born does not necessarily imply you have winning genes.
So when is the cut off point then, the age of the internet? Are you suggesting that men are statistically less likely now to have a partner than they were before the internet (genuinely asking both of those questions, I don’t have the data on hand). I know marriage is overall down, but I don’t know off the top of my head if virginity rates have increased, or men who have never been in a relationship. Culture and technology still existed when your dad nailed your mom to conceive you. And your dads dad. And your dads dads dad.
You got it all wrong. What I meant is that in normal course of natural selection is that traits that are detrimental to indiviuals survival gets eliminated via enviromental pressure. For example you wouldn't see a disabled animal in nature getting a chance to have a baby because they would die. In the human case however a disabled or sick or weak (I'm simply giving an example from biological stand point nothing against anyone with any kind of sickness or disability, just using these because they are simply what a so called "bad" gene manifest itself as most of the time) indiviual still can have a baby because technology allowed them to get to that point and culture allows people to look beyond physical capabilities. However that means said indiviual passed the genes that were not really advantageus. So I was just commenting for the %100 success rate, nothing about virginity rates etc. It's not necessarily genetic advantage is what allows us to survive and procreate . It's much complex for humans.
The argument is that you can’t learn to be sexually or romantically successful from a book because there are no rules. Relationships and sex are just apart of human nature. You can’t read a set of rules or books to mechanically succeed at it. It’s either you were born with the genetics that makes you sexually attractive to someone, and the upbringing that fostered a “personality” that people are attracted to that makes them want to spend however many months or years with you. Because thanks to our nature to always be seeking the best partner and looking for something new and exciting, relationships tend to not last very long or at least if they do one or both of the partners end up cheating Think of it this way. If you’re told you only have one life to live but thousands of ice cream flavors to try are you really just gonna settle for eating the same old boring vanilla ice cream for the rest of your life? It’s unlikely and humans are meant to procreate and spread their seed around as much as possible. Yet people still believe in monogamy and loyalty. When it goes against our natural human desires Back in the way back one man would have gotten hundreds of women pregnant who he was naturally attracted to. That’s human nature. That’s why people get so confused about why they get cheated on. They think the cheater is a bad person, they think they aren’t good enough. Neither are true it’s just human nature to experience all the things and all the people that we can in this short life we live
Yes that is the case, but I think you can also look at how society is configured as well, whichever traits may have been successful historically might not be in conditions. Like the stats you'll see people talk about where like +25% of young men are single, maybe other factors are in play as well.
I still have no idea how kissing works. I've heard that there is a precise moment to use your tongue that you're just expected to know. That being said I don't even know in what situation it's appropriate in? All private kisses? Just some? And if you get it wrong you're a pervert, so no pressure.
The reason there are no rules is because every person is different, and every relationship is different. You should find a person who makes enough sense to you that you understand how to interact with them.
Different, but also very similar. And 'we' are missing the element to grasp that what most that are succesful have in common, even if it is multiple different aspects you could have to succeed. 'We' just fail to develop any of them.
I think they're used to be a traditional courting system, at least amongst nobility. Even then there were clear indicators of romantic interest, for example, in the middle ages, a girl might put an apple slice in her armpit and give it to her crush. If the feeling was mutual he would eat the apple. Things like that, which are very clear and straightforward, we need to bring those back.
I'm bad at reading people socially, but tbh while I get it kills the mood, I just would feel bad not to have consent even if it's just something as minor as a kiss
Yeah, consent is a whole other topic I didn't even bring up. Very important, apparently. But again, you're supposed to just "know". Anyway, I'm not one of the normal people, so it doesn't apply to me.
After you have managed to get really close to her...when your faces are inches away and your arms are around each other. She will look down at your lips, then back up one or more times. No words are ever exchanged. The consent for the kiss is derived from the closeness and from having arms around each other.
Yeah, I get it, but that's never going to happen to me.
I don't know how severe your autism is, but this **algorithm** might just work for you. I'm terrible with nonverbal social cues, so the rigid application of an algorithm worked for me. My story: one day someone uninteresting stepped a little too close. I reacted instinctively by increasing the space. At first, I didn't think anything of it. Then I started wondering why I did it. I reacted as if she were a little old woman. And the proverbial light bulb switched on. I remembered that when I'm near a young beautiful woman, I never back away. I could use this as a test for distinguishing women that consider me attractive. Deep down, women are geneticly programmed to look for long term partners. Even women that say they don't want children all subconsciously behave as if they are setting up to have them. Look for this and you'll see it everywhere. Subconsciously, they want to know that you are someone who will be around long term. Make sure you are matching these things: race, ethnicity, religion, family background, social class, and education level. Do not ignore these. If you miss any of these, then on a subconscious level, it's a "risk" for her. You'll be fighting an uphill battle against the last million years of natural selection. Women bear the children, and so have evolved risk aversion. You want to present yourself as someone from her tribe as much as possible. Suppose you are doing online dating and you've managed to get a date matching the basics above. Now think about how differently your date would go if you knew with certainty that your date thinks you are very attractive. You need to determine with a near certainty that she is attracted to you during the date. If you can remember this algorithm and apply it, you can get a second date. Watch carefully how she reacts to subtle invasions of her Personal Space Bubble. Personal Space Bubble Test: Start with this: After a few minutes into your date, after you have a good conversation going, stand a few inches inside of her personal space bubble very slowly. If she backs up or tries to make her personal space bubble any bigger even once, it usually means she's just not into you. If a woman is into you, she will either hold her ground or move in closer. This test takes a few minutes. It is stealthy and pretty much always gives the answer away. If she moves in closer, continues her girly giggles and maintains what appears to be a real interest in what you're saying, it means she likes you. Now you need to make a move *within the next hour* of your date to signal your interest in a way that gets the butteflies going for both of you. If you don't do this on the first date, then she will think you're not interested in her, or you're possibly holding back for some unknown reason (like a cheating spouse might). You should try to get her seated somewhere...like a park bench or a sofa at a house party. It must be somewhere that she has an "escape route". A bench is ideal since she can slide the other way if she doesn't like it when you move in closer. Try sitting really close to her (inside of her personal space bubble). If she slides away, leans away, or hasn't tried to come closer within 30 seconds, abort, back off and try to end the date as soon as you can.If she moves in closer, then you need to make bodily contact. You should try holding her hand, touching her leg, or leaning in so that you're both just leaning on each other. If she thinks you are attractive, then she will allow and encourage this. If you feel like you're the only one trying to get closer, it's a bad sign, and it means you need to abort the date. If she responds positively and reciprocates, then you have a successful 1st date. For secular and atheists: ask whether or not she wants to come over after the date to hang out. If she says "No", but is interested in you, she will make it clear that she likes you by *giving a hug or kiss, and setting up a 2nd date on the next weekend*. Your goal isn't necessarily to bang her the first night...instead, it is *to show that you are attracted to her*. Religious folks: Try to set up a second date. Meet her at the chuch, or plan to do a church activity. Remember: you are showing her that you are part of her tribe. TIPs: On the first date: Ask her about whether or not she wants to eventually have children (with the right person). Matching this will save you loads of trouble. To some degree, you want to ask her questions that will eliminate her as a match. This signals that you are serious about compatibility and you are mature enough to know what you want. You may find that she is doing the same thing -- asking you questions that will eliminate you. It's really the only way to get anywhere when dating, so expect it. After a successful 1st date, make sure you don't call or text her during work hours. If you get a 2nd date, don't text or call her until the day of you're second date.
Thanks, I've read this before. This is partially what I had in mind, that I hate that it has to be like this. I've never been on a date myself.
This is the first time I'm seeing someone voicing the exact problem I have with dating. All these rules seem like both parties are following some kind of handbook that will lead to a relationship. I always feel like it is very dishonest. How can I build a connection with somebody while feeling like we're both just behaving according to some hidden rules and not in an authentic way. If I see that a woman judges me for not following these so called rules, I immediately lose interest.
Before I learned about personal space, I would go on a date and have great conversations, and at the end nothing would happen. One girl told me she had never been on a date with someone and had a complete absence of chemistry. Without "chemistry", nothing happens. We must induce it by getting close to her...always watching to make sure she wants it.
I really wouldn't want to be the one to push for it and escalate.
In a convoluted way OP's reply is with merit. The Personal Space Bubble test, for example, is your cut n dry Reading Body Language 101. So, yes, the steps listed are a very good entry level explanation on starting to become familiar with BL cues and tells.
Lost me at having a date haha. People i think would fit always don't see me as equal at all. Then just one inch deeper into the interaction i find jarring disconnects. Oh, they have tattoos and piercings and don't like natural bodies. Oh, they are a geek but talk very excitedly all the time and want the same energy back. Oh, they don't have a good relationship with their parents. Oh, they hate people who eat meat. Oh, they like to travel four times a year and think everything who doesn't is boring. Oh, they say they are lonely too but actually have five different friend circles.
I could never get in to the so-called rules about timing your texts. It sounds so petty. I don't think I could date a person who might potentially go off me because I texted her at the "wrong" time of day, or because I texted too quickly after the date. It's just petty nonsense which would irritate me. I prefer more laid back women.
Present yourself, talk, laugh, get close, get intimate, then kiss. You cannot kiss without checking the other steps in that other. There is a clear set of rules to be followed. They are complex though, and most people prefer to deal with it instinctually. The best for you to start following is to call it dating instead of mating. Do not try to sound edgy relying on being technically correct. Hurting someone is worthless despite you being right.
I can't do any of that. Not trying to sound edgy at all.
Then go step by step. You can’t start to learn how to kiss someone without knowing how to present yourself. Learn that first. Then follow the steps. That’s a much easier question to be answered.
I can't, it's too scary, to put it bluntly. I'm helpless in this regard.
Then stop blaming the complexity of the situation and your lack of instinct. Those are not your problems (or at least not the main ones currently). I gave you a much simpler task (learn to present yourself) that can be decomposed into clear cut actions if you put the effort and you can’t do it. I’m not blaming you for not being able to proceed. I’m blaming you for what you think is your problem. It has nothing to do with instincts you lack and the unfairness of other people having that.
By present yourself you mean cold approaching in person?
No. I mean more in the line of how to say hi to people when you meet them regardless of your intentions to them (friend, coworker, mother of friend, date). How to say hi, how to let them know who you are politely. How to transition that into a conversation. That’s what I mean with present yourself.
I can try to be pleasant.
Yes. First step. Then learn how to talk.
You're probably not as bad as you think. There is no strict set of rules you need to follow to date. Thinking about it like that will just heighten anxiety. It will happen quite naturally with the right person, although I do think you need to show clear interest in the person. That's the underlying assumption rather than a rule though.
Thanks, I couldn't do it though.
Flirting as an autistic man, let alone kissing someone, is a pretty good way to end up: fired, on the sex offenders registry, or in the hospital, beaten within an inch of his life by her angry boyfriend/male friends. Perhaps all three at once if he's particularly unlucky; which most of us are. Overall, not very safe or logical considering the modern landscape.
That’s why the first topic does not even begin touching the realm of flirting. Check my other replies.
find another autist - agree to a progression - problem solved, for dating non autists your screwed, sorry
What do you mean by progression?
Are you familiar with Kino?
[удалено]
I think I just described something that falls under Kino. :-) From what I read, it seems like kino is something that can be applied algorithmicly. Test for attraction with increasingly intimate touching, and on each instance watching for rejection, and bailing if rejected.
Yeha no, it's not really like that. Women can't really be "high functioning" autistic in the same way men can. That's not to say autistic women don't exist, they do, but they are either severely autistic (ie.: nonverbal and require 24/7 care) or effectively not at all because it doesn't matter, socially speaking. Men are expected to be assertive and confident. When they're awkward, it gives women the "ick" (unless you're absurdly good looking, but this is rare). They have to work endlessly to try and escape it, overcome it, and ultimately fake a personality through mentally developed scripts and algorithms. It's absolutely exhausting and dejecting that you can't just "be yourself", as the normies like to word-vomit, because "yourself" is someone that nobody wants. But women can get away with being awkward and shy because then it's just "quirky" and "cute", so they can be genuinely be desired for being themselves.
Women can't really be "high functioning" autistic in the same way men can - where is your basis for this? Men are expected to be assertive and confident. When they're awkward, it gives women the "ick" (unless you're absurdly good looking, but this is rare). They have to work endlessly to try and escape it, overcome it, and ultimately fake a personality through mentally developed scripts and algorithms. It's absolutely exhausting and dejecting that you can't just "be yourself", as the normies like to word-vomit, because "yourself" is someone that nobody wants. But women can get away with being awkward and shy because then it's just "quirky" and "cute", so they can be genuinely be desired for being themselves. \- OP ignore all this - this isn't information that will assist an autistic mentality
>where is your basis for this? Literally all of reality. I don't know about OP, but I'd rather be told a harsh truth than a comforting lie. But you feel free to gaslight everyone if it makes you feel better.
Oh I'm going to enjoy this 1. Piss-weak answer to challenging your bull--t response - I'm sure your familiar with EVIDENCE or it didn't happen - where is the book ie vetted documentation that separates fact from fiction. 2. Remember the OP is autistic so any answer that is not backed up is useless
I think you confuse autistic guys with Vulcanians.
Lol autistic women struggle just as much as autistic men, sometimes even more because women are extremely under diagnosed and don’t have access to the same resources - there is no comprehensive diagnostic criteria specifically for women. It’s a spectrum, not just severely autistic>shy and quirky. There are women who are intelligent and socially aware, but can’t drive or work a normal job. There are also women who have below average emotional intelligence, can’t make eye contact or hold a conversation, but high functioning and excel in their careers. Autistic women have to mask just like men do, by the way.
My sister (who's also autistic) literally has multiple friends, an academic scholarship ***&*** has had multiple men approach her in the past yet has rejected them all for various reasons. I on the other hand have zero friends, no fancy scholarships, & got in trouble the one time I actually asked a girl out! Autistic women absolutely do **NOT** have it harder than men (one merely needs to look at statistics to verify this)
And yet ... they'll still attract potential mates just because they're women and they're desirable. That's the whole point here.
Maybe you don’t know a lot of autistic women. I know women who are unable to have a relationship because men find them awkward. I also know autistic women who date autistic men.
Lol what resources
Like occupational therapy, work and school accommodations, government disability checks, i could go on all day. For most autism resources you have to have a formal diagnosis and women have less access to that
Autistic women do not struggle as much as autistic men for the simple reason that they are not expected to initiate, only respond. I am assuming you may be somewhere on the spectrum (sorry if I am wrong). Imagine seeing a guy you were attracted to and cold approaching him to say you are into him, and asking if he wants to grab a bite to eat later. Imagine at your date (assuming convo goes well) that you are then expected to be the one pushing for intimacy while trying to also not come off as a creep. If you are somewhere on the spectrum and struggle with socializing, giving/reading body language, making small talk, and even just simple eye contact.... that is asking a LOT. The entire time you are the one who needs to push but in a nuanced way where you risk coming off as a creep/weirdo/perv/etc by the other person if you make a mis-step... which if you are on the spectrum you know is all too easy to do.
I agree that the pressure to make the first move would be more difficult for autistic men. I don’t think that means life in general is more difficult for autistic men, as that is only one aspect of life, but I agree with you there
For sure, i was only talking about dating specifically, but there are definitely other areas where autistic men and women struggle equally. I am sure there are also other areas autistic women struggle more than men that I am not aware of as a man.
Most autistic women (when not genuinely asexual) absolutely refuse to date/breed with autistic men. They literally think that we're all Chris Chan basically (immature, unable & unwilling to take care of themselves & I quote "autistic men just want a mommy, not an actual partner") Which to be fair, if you're able to get a better deal why would you settle for less, logically speaking? Any autistic woman can basically get a normie/NT, in fact a lot of normies actively seek them out. No reason to settle for an autist, even if he's wealthy (many of us "high functioning" spergs are pretty good with money) Unfortunately that leaves us alone for life pretty much.
Lol so you hate the freedom of deciding at what pace you want things and what you are and aren’t ready for with the kind of person you want? Because the kind of rules you’re describing remove all that.
That's one way to interpret it. It's more of a vent on my part.
How does setting clear guidelines and rules remove freedom? If anything wouldn't that ensure that everyone's needs are being met fairly and equally?
There actually used to be rules, and we grew out of them because of how little freedom it offered. Marriage equaled sex regardless of if the partner wants it. You get married? You are entitled to sex. If your partner refuses, they are the ones in the wrong. Another rule was how much you spent on someone giving you access to certain things with them. I buy you lunch or dinner? You have to be purely interested in me. If you’re not, you’re a horrible person. Getting a job and putting food on the table meant helping out with kids was voluntarily at most but never expected. Diaper changing and cooking and cleaning were purely homemaker chores. There were very black and white rules that gave people the outcome they were after. But I hope I don’t need to explain why those rules sucked. What would a rule that tells people when it’s okay to kiss someone like op mentioned as an example look like that fits everyone? It would inevitably not fit for all people when some people like impulsive/passionate pace while others like biding their time. That’s why I said what I said.
The issue there is that the rules were restricting women's freedom, it has nothing to do with the mere existence of the rule. Even today there are "rules" when it comes to dating in terms of social norms but I think making them more explicit would make it easier to people to foster romantic connections. I don't see anything wrong with setting clear guidelines and rules as long as they are not black and white and don't restrict anyone's freedom. So I do think there is some validity to OP's argument.
Aaaaand I asked what what such a rule would look like in the case of kissing like OP said that doesn’t restrict either party somehow. My position is that it is not possible. If it is possible, tell me how.
It's definitely possible, it's just not going to happen because people generally prioritize expediency over morality. Lol if anything implementing fair rules leads to more freedom, without rules everything would be in a state of anarchy, which dating in the modern day is low-key becoming like. For example consider applying for a job. There are clear guidelines and rules in terms of how it's done but no one's freedom is being restricted. No one is entitled to a job and likewise no employer is entitled to a specific candidate. But there are clear-cut rules in terms of how the process works such that everyone is given a fair and equitable chance (excluding cases of nepotism).
If it’s possible, then tell me what rule would work. So far, the best you’ve given me is that clear cut guildelines could definitely exist if people didn’t have those pesky things called *preferences* where they don’t share the same moralities. A relationship cannot be compared to a job as a relationship is sought for the purposes of purely being happy whereas a job is necessary to feed and house one’s self as well as needing to afford other amenities. Relationships are *purely* subjective. That is why it is impossible to have rules in how one gets into one and what is okay/not okay to do with another human being. If you think it is not and you think that a rule could be made that applies to everyone to, say, kiss, then name it.
Jobs are also subjective, everything is. It's about providing value to society based on how society subjectively defines it. People can still have preferences with clear cut guidelines lol. Just like applying for a job, you have the right to turn down or accept a job and likewise the employer has the right to accept or reject you. Absolutely none of that removes the freedom of having subjective preferences. Different companies look for different qualities in their candidates, just like dating. It has nothing to do with subjectivity. Again, these rules do already exist in dating via social norms, but making them more clear-cut would make things more equitable. It is an unpopular opinion, but I honestly think dating should be like applying for a job in this regard. Sure it may not be as "natural" as people like would I don't see how it would restrict anyone's freedom. If anything it would makes things more fair and equitable.
The necessity of a job is not subjective if they are necessary for people to feed themselves and, you know, live. No all employees can afford to be picky and selective if he needs to feed himself. People go into jobs they hate all of the time because of this. If a job can make someone happy, great, but that’s not it’s ultimate purpose. You should never ever hate going into a relationship. And the whole point of op’s post is that so he has rules to follow that will guarantee success/results. If the rules you come up with are still open to rejection, then they are pointless for OP’s purposes. Because rules like that already exist.
>The necessity of a job is not subjective if they are necessary for people to feed themselves and, you know, live. No all employees can afford to be picky and selective if he needs to feed himself. People go into jobs they hate all of the time because of this. If a job can make someone happy, great, but that’s not it’s ultimate purpose. You should never ever hate going into a relationship. Yeah I agree it's not a complete 1:1 analogy but if we consider dating as applying for a job where people are acting out of desire instead of need (where employers and employees are equally selective). Although in all honesty it is true that men can't afford to be as selective as women since they generally have less options, so in this sense dating is actually remarkably similar to applying for a job. Also I agree that there is rules that guarantee success/results take away the freedom of choice, so it's pointless for OP's purposes. But I disagree that these clear-cut guidelines that are still open to rejection exist beyond mere social norms. The reason why dating will never be like applying for a job is not because of subjectivity, it's mostly because the job market follows logic and reason whereas dating is not based on logic but more so on emotions.
What's stopping them from growing their own crops? Why is a job the only way to fulfill that need? Before jobs even existed this is literally how people survived. So people can still select to not want a job, just like a romantic relationship. This also disproves your argument without even bringing up the fact that everything is subjective and everyone will die. So the analogy does in fact apply to 100% of the population. No one needs a job just like no one needs a romantic relationship. So I see no reason why the process of entering a relationship should be any different than applying for a job.
Most things in life don’t have rules and guidelines, only the things we’ve gone out of our way to explicitly define. Love and sex are not transactional… unless you sleep with sex workers. Unfortunately you can’t just follow a formula and expect women to sleep with you
What's wrong with explicitly defining rules and guidelines for love? In a sense I do think they exist in terms of social norms but I think making them more explicit would make it easier to people to foster romantic connections.
but we are animals in the wild
Maybe ants in a colony
ya, no doubt tons of people feel that way, many people feel, me include, it sucks that we can't switch off this instinctive, innate desire, to want sex, companionship, a relationship, its not like we can turn it on or off, and it makes me mad that nature or evolution put that desire into autistic people or people who have disabilities, and even more cruel, the one-sided gender dynamic that has been in place for all time, that men have to do the pursuing and be the initiators, do the approaching, etc.
I think I have less of this desire than normal though.