Dating people with disabilities

I would be interested in hearing some honest opinions about this. One of the things that I find most annoying is people censoring their own words for fear of causing offence, but I get the feeling that won't be a problem here.

It depends on whether or not the disability was caused by an accident but was the consequence of a genetic factor.

In general a disability signals genetic inferiority. An incompleteness, a dysfunction, that may be passed on to offspring.
There is also the social stigma, and the limitations imposed upon them which must be suffered by the one dating them - reduction of possibilities is experienced as a reduction of potentials, freedom.

The more severe the disability, the more compensation is required to survive/date/mate.

It's the same as being born poor, or stupid, or to neglectful parents. The more severe the handicap, the higher energy, effort, and determination is required to survive.

Basically, you have to fight ten times harder, just to break even with other 'normal' people.

Satyr wrote:

It depends on whether or not the disability was caused by an accident but was the consequence of a genetic factor.

In general a disability signals genetic inferiority. An incompleteness, a dysfunction, that may be passed on to offspring.
There is also the social stigma, and the limitations imposed upon them which must be suffered by the one dating them - reduction of possibilities is experienced as a reduction of potentials, freedom.

I understand the social stigma aspect of why many people would choose not to date a disabled person. It's a bit sad though that so many people care about what others think.

Æon wrote:

The more severe the disability, the more compensation is required to survive/date/mate.

It's the same as being born poor, or stupid, or to neglectful parents.  The more severe the handicap, the higher energy, effort, and determination is required to survive.

Basically, you have to fight ten times harder, just to break even with other 'normal' people.

Yes, having to fight ten times harder just to keep up. I can relate to that.

Maia wrote:

I understand the social stigma aspect of why many people would choose not to date a disabled person. It's a bit sad though that so many people care about what others think.

Social stigmas are part if it. But humans are bound to the same evolutionary psychological principles of sex and survival that animals are bound to. When mate selection and sexual selection is relevant than valuing physical beauty and health and fitness matters. Cost/benefit ratios play into reproductive motives and the biological drive of producing healthy offspring. Mate selection is driven by sexual and reproductive drives. If they become "memetic", I.e. choosing a partner based only on emotional and intellectual needs rather than procreation, than that has to do more with self-identity valuations, or sexual dysfunctions.

Kvasir wrote:

Maia wrote:

I understand the social stigma aspect of why many people would choose not to date a disabled person. It's a bit sad though that so many people care about what others think.

Social stigmas are part if it. But humans are bound to the same evolutionary psychological principles of sex and survival that animals are bound to. When mate selection and sexual selection is relevant than valuing physical beauty and health and fitness matters. Cost/benefit ratios play into reproductive motives and the biological drive of producing healthy offspring. Mate selection is driven by sexual and reproductive drives. If they become "memetic", I.e. choosing a partner based only on emotional and intellectual needs rather than procreation,  than that has to do more with self-identity valuations, or sexual dysfunctions.

I can understand this sort of reasoning. After all, I would not consider dating a disabled person, which might sound grossly hypocritical, but is actually just a matter of practicalities.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

This applies here, since the kind of "disability" we are speaking of is physical and not mental.
Here physical disability could be placed in the same context as ugliness, or being short, or fat....etc.
Anything that makes an individual less than the ideal of physical fitness.

Mental disability involves entirely different issues.

For example:
Many on ILP are intellectually and spiritually handicapped but this did not prevent many of them from propagating, yet with the liberation of females - from paternalism - and their return to their original role as genetic/memetic filtering agencies, their offspring will probable not propagate.
Monogamy means that many females may have to share the same males, or they may have to settle for inferior males, just as many males are more than willing to settle for whatever kind of female they can get.
This may also produce a generation or two of males and females that never procreate or ever have a sexual relationship. This is more likely for males than for females for the reasons given in the post I linked to.

Intellectually above average females - say on the top 10% - will find it difficult to settle, as will males on the top 1% IQ.
Those in the middle of the Bell Curve will enter in and out of ephemeral relationships which may produce multiple offspring from a variety of sexual partners - the majority may never have children due to contraceptives and access to abortions.
A state of affairs particularly harsh for the top percentile in IQ females and for average IQ males that lack any physical fitness markers - so called incels.
Of course, as with everything, there are no absolutes, so there are exceptions to the rule.
But we are always discussing the general rule, not the exception.

These rules only apply to western Americanized socioeconomic systems, and do not apply to traditional systems; systems that have been indoctrinated into a world-view after generations of media, and Hollywood cultural undermining.

That's as may be, but in my case, at least, I'm also very picky about who I choose to date. Some might argue that I shouldn't be, but I'd rather be single than settle for a substandard partner.

Maia wrote:

That's as may be, but in my case, at least, I'm also very picky about who I choose to date. Some might argue that I shouldn't be, but I'd rather be single than settle for a substandard partner.

All women are picky, because that's part of their reproductive role.
Their "pickiness" is determined by their self-esteem.
A woman feels no attraction to what she evaluates as being inferior to how she evaluates herself - she can barely tolerate what is her equal.
A woman is attracted to what is superior.

As such, showing weakness to a women that she may gauge to be more than her own is a sure way to make her lose sexual interest in you.

Satyr wrote:

Maia wrote:

That's as may be, but in my case, at least, I'm also very picky about who I choose to date. Some might argue that I shouldn't be, but I'd rather be single than settle for a substandard partner.

All women are picky, because that's part of their reproductive role.
Their "pickiness" is determined by their self-esteem.
A woman feels no attraction to what she evaluates as being inferior to how she evaluates herself - she can barely tolerate what is her equal.
A woman is attracted to what is superior.

As such, showing weakness to a women that she may gauge to be more than her own is a sure way to make her lose sexual interest in you.  

I have been called a stuck up snob (and worse) in the past. But I don't think I am. I've also known some pretty pathetic men, to be honest.

Maia wrote:

I have been called a stuck up snob (and worse) in the past. But I don't think I am. I've also known some pretty pathetic men, to be honest.

Is a man pathetic because when he lusts for you, because you lack confidence in yourself and when he aggresses you, you doubt how a male could feel sexual arousal for you?

Isn't this just a reflection of how you value yourself?


For example, popular and sluttier women are proud of all the men who dog after them or 'simp' for them, because they know and feel superior to it. These women easily manipulate men. Maybe you are less self-confident, or feel embarrassed for a man who would, given your disabilities? You believe that, since you are 'flawed', that so too must a man be to target you?

Æon wrote:

Maia wrote:

I have been called a stuck up snob (and worse) in the past. But I don't think I am. I've also known some pretty pathetic men, to be honest.

Is a man pathetic because when he lusts for you, because you lack confidence in yourself and when he aggresses you, you doubt how a male could feel sexual arousal for you?

Isn't this just a reflection of how you value yourself?


For example, popular and sluttier women are proud of all the men who dog after them or 'simp' for them, because they know and feel superior to it.  These women easily manipulate men.  Maybe you are less self-confident, or feel embarrassed for a man who would, given your disabilities?  You believe that, since you are 'flawed', that so too must a man be to target you?

No, that's not why some men are pathetic.

I don't believe I'm "flawed" either. I'm exactly how nature intended me, personally, to be, and am therefore perfect (in that sense).

But nor am I a slut.

You're contradicting yourself.

If you are proud of yourself, then you will not be surprised when males ingratiate and compete for you, because that will be the normal standard.



This would also imply that "dating people with disabilities" is the same as other 'normal' (not disabled) people.



You already admitted that you would not date another disabled person.



I demonstrated my previous point with other factors, such as intelligence or born to lowly/neglectful parents, already.

The bottom-line is: if a person, male or female, as exceptional traits, or a single exceptional trait that trumps all flaws/deficiencies, then that person will be competed for. Money/wealth is the normal compensation. But there are many, many more.

Isn't a male pathetic when he can't control himself or really says what he thinks?

Go on, I want to hear it.

Æon wrote:

You're contradicting yourself.

If you are proud of yourself, then you will not be surprised when males ingratiate and compete for you, because that will be the normal standard.



This would also imply that "dating people with disabilities" is the same as other 'normal' (not disabled) people.



You already admitted that you would not date another disabled person.



I demonstrated my previous point with other factors, such as intelligence or born to lowly/neglectful parents, already.

The bottom-line is: if a person, male or female, as exceptional traits, or a single exceptional trait that trumps all flaws/deficiencies, then that person will be competed for.  Money/wealth is the normal compensation.  But there are many, many more.

I would not date another disabled person purely for practical reasons. If I were to fall in love with one, then those reasons would disappear. There's a very big difference, though, between dating someone and falling in love with someone.

I have never been short of offers. I just find the general calibre of those offering to be pretty mediocre at best.

Æon wrote:

Isn't a male pathetic when he can't control himself or really says what he thinks?

Go on, I want to hear it.

Yes, lack of self control is pathetic.

Maia wrote:

Satyr wrote:

Maia wrote:

That's as may be, but in my case, at least, I'm also very picky about who I choose to date. Some might argue that I shouldn't be, but I'd rather be single than settle for a substandard partner.

All women are picky, because that's part of their reproductive role.
Their "pickiness" is determined by their self-esteem.
A woman feels no attraction to what she evaluates as being inferior to how she evaluates herself - she can barely tolerate what is her equal.
A woman is attracted to what is superior.

As such, showing weakness to a women that she may gauge to be more than her own is a sure way to make her lose sexual interest in you.  

I have been called a stuck up snob (and worse) in the past. But I don't think I am. I've also known some pretty pathetic men, to be honest.

A woman rejects what she judges to be beneath her, so in a sense you are discriminating.

"Stuck up snob" has Marxist connotations involving animosity toward aristocratic ethics, having to do with merit. But they are now associated with materialism, capitalism, social privilege.
It a shaming strategy attempting to weaken the other by using morality - see how iamretarded uses morality to achieve the same effect.
He has no counter-argument so he dismisses anything that he cannot challenge as being "objectivist" or "skyhooks", ideological, subjective.
He uses morality as a softener of resolve, of confidence - shaming others into a level of skepticism - concealed cynicism - which arbitrarily dismisses anything threatening as meaningless words.
Seeding doubt is his motive.
His signature tells you all you need to know about the source of his intent.

Like many of these kinds of cowards and idiots, they tell you exactly who they are and why, in the form of an accusation.
They tell you exactly what they fear, and why they fear it in their very attacks against some "evil" other, using it as a caricature of what they intuitively sense they are guilty of - their attacks are self-diagnostic.
As I've posted on Hyperborea...they usually become obsessed with their diagnostician, the one who triggered their self-awarness.
Thinking he can help them they become enamoured, but then they realizes that the diagnostician is not a god, he cannot save them from their past - causal chains cannot be changed, and they are so distressed that they must hate the one who reminds them of who and what they are, because they were convinced that anyone who saw them could make them better.
And they can't.
They can't hate their own fate, their inheritance, so they redirect their vengeance against the diagnostician that failed to heal them from their fate.
Love turns to hate - obsession remains fixated and unyielding.
They cannot break free just as they cannot work to improve themselves.
They cannot admit the source of their failings, weaknesses, but they intuitively know what they are, so they project, externalizing them in an attempt to absolve themselves, overcome themselves, purify themselves - make themselves worthy of aid, of sympathy, of consideration.
Their inability to admit the fault is in their convictions means they can never begin to improve, adapt, overcome.
They are stuck, trapped, because they cannot accept that their convictions might be wrong - this would put in question an entire lifetime.
What's left for them is to accuse, unburdening themselves from the responsibility by creating a caricature of their own negative traits, personified as an-other they can then call "Objectivist", "Nazi", and blame for what is to come.
They are, in fact, preparing for the inevitability of their diagnosis.
They are describing themselves, their own fate, with every attack - their fears are externalized and hated.
We hate what we fear.
We fear what we cannot change.
The other becomes a caricature of their fears which they can then accuse and hate.
But this only makes what will come all the more inevitable.
If you cannot accept your own responsibilities you can never change anything.

Satyr wrote:

Maia wrote:

Satyr wrote:

Maia wrote:

That's as may be, but in my case, at least, I'm also very picky about who I choose to date. Some might argue that I shouldn't be, but I'd rather be single than settle for a substandard partner.

All women are picky, because that's part of their reproductive role.
Their "pickiness" is determined by their self-esteem.
A woman feels no attraction to what she evaluates as being inferior to how she evaluates herself - she can barely tolerate what is her equal.
A woman is attracted to what is superior.

As such, showing weakness to a women that she may gauge to be more than her own is a sure way to make her lose sexual interest in you.  

I have been called a stuck up snob (and worse) in the past. But I don't think I am. I've also known some pretty pathetic men, to be honest.

A woman rejects what she judges to be beneath her, so in a sense you are discriminating.

"Stuck up snob" has Marxist connotations involving animosity toward aristocratic ethics, having to do with merit. But the are now associated with maternalism, capitalism, social privilege.
It a shaming strategy attempting to weaken the other by using morality - see how iamretarded uses morality to achieve the same effect.
He has no counter-argument so he dismisses anything that he cannot challenge as being "objectivist" or "skyhooks", ideological, subjective.
He uses morality as a softener of resolve, of confidence - shaming others into a level of skepticism - concealed cynicism - which arbitrarily dismisses anything threatening as meaningless words.
Seeding doubt is his motive.
His signature tells you all you need to know about the source of his intent.

Like many of these kinds of cowards and idiots,. they tell you exactly who they are and why, in the form of an accusation.
They tell you exactly what they fear, and why they fear it in their very attacks against some "evil" other, using it as a caricature of what they intuitively sense they are guilty of - their attacks are self-diagnostic.
As I've posted on Hyperborea...they usually become obsessed with their diagnostician, the one who triggered their self-awarness.
Thinking he can help them they become enamoured, but then they realizes that the diagnostician is not a god, he cannot save them form their past - causal chains cannot be changed, and they are so distressed that they must hate the one who reminds them of who and what they are, because they were convinced that anyone who saw them could make them better.
And they can't.
They can't hate their fate, their inheritance, so they redirect their vengeance against the diagnostician that failed to heal them from their fate.
Love turns to hate - obsession remains fixated and unyielding.
They cannot break free just as they cannot work to improve themselves.
They cannot admit the source of their failings, weaknesses, but they intuitively know what they are, so they project, externalizing them in an attempt to absolve themselves, overcome themselves, purify themselves - make themselves worthy of aid, of sympathy, of consideration.
Their inability to admit the fault is in their convictions means they can never begin to improve, adapt, overcome.
They are stuck, trapped, because they cannot accept that their convictions might be wrong - this would put in question an entire lifetime.
What's left for them is to accuse, unburdening themselves from the responsibility by creating a caricature of their own negative traits, personified as an-other they can then call "Objectivist", "Nazi", and blame for what is to come.
They are, in fact, preparing for the inevitability of their diagnosis.
They are describing themselves, their own fate, with every attack - their fears are externalized and hated.
We hate what we fear.
We fear what we cannot change.
The other becomes a caricatures of their fears which they can then accuse and hate.
But this only makes what will come all the more inevitable.
If you cannot accept your own responsibilities you can never change anything.

Yes, I'm certainly discriminating, in the original, non-judgemental meaning of the word. That is, someone who chooses something based on its quality.

This very much applies to who I choose to date, too. I can usually judge the quality of a person after a few seconds of talking.

Obviously, in terms of dating, there has to be a physical attraction, too. For me, it's smell that does it.

Smell is always primary....those with vision can also use image from a distance, i.e., physical symmetry, proportionality...
You only have scent and mental symmetry, proportionality.

Satyr wrote:

Smell is always primary....those with vision can also use image from a distance, i.e., physical symmetry, proportionality...
You only have scent and mental symmetry, proportionality.

I strongly suspect that smell plays a crucial role for sighted people too, without them being fully aware of it, except perhaps on a superficial level.

A good voice helps too.

Yes, vision distracts the sighted from their other senses. They act upon them subconsciously...and they attribute it to mysticism, chemistry, intuition, fatalism.
They don't understand the other sources of awareness, nor their own automatic judgements and subsequent intuitive choices....so they believe in fate - inevitability.

Satyr wrote:

Yes, vision distracts the sighted from their other senses. They act upon them subconsciously...and they attribute it to mysticism, chemistry, intuition, fatalism.
They don't understand the other sources of awareness, nor their own automatic judgements and subsequent intuitive choices....so they believe in fate - inevitability.

I think that's what intuition actually is, awareness based on sensory input that we're not always aware of. I've found that I do tend to be a lot more consciously aware of it than other most people, though.

And people sometimes think I have a limited or cutailed sort of life! Honestly, if only they knew.

Yeah, well, loss of control is what causes babies to be born.

Yes, intuition is an awareness of sources of information - sensual input - which are not visual or acoustic.
It is an accentuation of man's primary senses.
Like the skin and how it can perceive aura, physical magnetic fields in proximity.

But intuition also draws from visual and sonar sources which are not direct - like details the eye picks-up but do not register consciously, or sounds, and sights, that lie on the limits of man's acoustic and visual range....
this is the source of much of what they refer to as magic, or mysticism.

The sense of smell is another underrated sense which, nevertheless, sends data to the brain which is processed subconsciously.

The brain processes all this data and constructs abstractions or interprets this data as vague sensations - "gut feelings" - and it reacts and judges and chooses without engaging the conscious mind - the ego.

Satyr wrote:

Yes, intuition is an awareness of sources of information - sensual input - which are not visual or acoustic.
It is an accentuation of man's primary senses.
Like the skin and how it can perceive aura, physical magnetic fields in proximity.

But intuition also draws from visual and sonar sources which are not direct - like details the eye picks-up but do not register consciously, or sounds, and sights, that lie on the limits of man's acoustic and visual range....
this is the source of much of what they refer to as magic, or mysticism.

The sense of smell is another underrated sense which, nevertheless, sends data to the brain which is processed subconsciously.

The brain processes all this data and constructs abstractions or interprets this data as vague sensations - "gut feelings" - and it reacts and judges and chooses without engaging the conscious mind - the ego.

It's a fascinating subject of study, one which I've always been interested in.

Yes it is.

The idea that men can be known and understood by others more than they can ever know and understand themselves, is interesting.
Like we can know dogs or chimps or other species when they can never know themselves.

Words are used like ink clouds, to confuse and evade detection.
Words are used to conceal what actions - pattered behaviours - reveal.

As such semiotics is the foundation of all nihilistic ideologies, i.e., Marxism, postmodernism, and spiritual dogmas, i.e., Abrahamic triad.

Maia wrote:

Æon wrote:

Isn't a male pathetic when he can't control himself or really says what he thinks?

Go on, I want to hear it.

Yes, lack of self control is pathetic.

I don't know, i think the opposite extreme is also pathetic to some degree, keeping it all in, which men are already expected to do with regards to violence. Express nothing say nothing do nothing, it might be enough for a god, but not for man, something must always come out.

Men largely not having families in their lives are becoming more desperate to create them, tread lightly in the years to come.

Satyr wrote:

Yes it is.

The idea that men can be known and understood by others more than they can ever know and understand themselves, is interesting.
Like we can know dogs or chimps or other species when they can never know themselves.

Words are used like ink clouds, to confuse and evade detection.
Words are used to conceal what actions - pattered behaviours - reveal.

As such semiotics is the foundation of all nihilistic ideologies, i.e., Marxism, postmodernism, and spiritual dogmas, i.e., Abrahamic triad.

It's actually quite fun too. Like exploring.