I've been married 20 years, so the answer is yes.
I admit, I had didn't ever have a real "girlfriend" before I met my wife. Most of my "dating" was basically just sex. I lived with girl for a while, but she kicked me out for sleeping with her roommate when she was gone one weekend. Until I met my wife, I was never in love with any girl, so I did stuff like that and didn't care.
Before I was 18, I was just too terrified of the whole thing, but with alcohol and night clubs I learned that it was pretty easy to get sex once I was relaxed (drunk) and learned how it was done. However, I do not recommend self-medicating with alcohol, as it led to big legal problems for me. Don't do it. Use anti-anxiety medications instead.
I read a lot of books on how to pick up women and what women like (in every way). You might not find these at a typical bookstore. I found them at a used book store. They were excellent.
Some people might scold me for "using" all those women, but if I hadn't learned what I learned, I wouldn't be married today.
This stuff will be very uncomfortable in the beginning. You will be rejected. You will make mistakes, and probably feel humiliated sometimes.
The option to learning is being alone.
"The option to learning is being alone. "
That's a compelling and controversial statement. Very interesting.
One that I do not agree with.
I never properly learned how to approach people.
Yet I got married, had kids. Was not always alone. Things took longer to happen, yes. But the statement made above is nothing more than a false dichotomy.
It probably is a false dichotomy. You have AS, you didn't learn, and you are not alone. It did sound dreadfully dramatic though, didn't it?
Still, I think that if one wants companionship, actively learning how to get it and actively pursuing what you desire will yield better results on average, both quantitatively and qualitatively, than waiting to be approached. Actually, I know this for a fact, because I tried it both ways.
On what grounds?
If I really believed that I would need to be on suicide precaution.
No. Anybody with the actual diagnosis of AS can NEVER get a significant other.
Well.... I remember The Learning Channel from 1997, What Women Really Want. It made at least one of Five's points such as the correlation between proportion of skin naked and ovulation phase. Went on to talk about a female anthropologist's work: ovulation made a difference of when she did the asking versus him.
When considered in combination with theories such as the nonverbal role in attraction and the game the males play (provoke, tease, but don't run in right away, send the right signal) this has potent implications for us to learn how to interpret and respond in their language.
I've also read that 99% of human DNA is the same as a chimpanzee's, definitely a common ancestor, also that we seem to have the neotanized characteristics of baby chimpanzees (human face): neotany means we have another species' infantile characteristics.
I wish people and that includes women would act more like humans and less like the other mammals. It is not all about feelings. There is a place for intelligence in mate selection. Ted Bundy proved that.
They mean the thread "Rant: my best friend's outburst at my funeral"
The backstory on that is that I have a woman friend, married 2 kids, that hopes I will be married, told me she hoped my last gf of maybe two years was the right one, but she is not.
If I died single, well, she would never see me get married, would she?
I was imaging a rant of her own, in light of theories such as that of Groovy Druid on wrongplanet.net
http://www.wrongplanet.net/article297.html
He suggests that a failure of an Asperger adult of either gender to make a romantic success is because of the general failure of Asperger adults to recognize social signals of romantic interest and otherwise a general ignorance of how to play the dating game.
General rules:
1. If she is interested she flirts
2. But don't jump in right away cowboy, she won't feel the thrill of victory unless she has to work at attracting your attention
3. His posture is important
4. Small talk makes her feel safe (but doesn't make her safe)
5. Being alone is an invitation to end a wonderful evening with a kiss
6. One's friends know when to get lost when someone is hitting on one
One more thing: two of the references Groovy Druid used for his article, upon further reading, seem to have the direct objective of carnal knowledge.
However, before you burn Groovy Druid's piece, that is because some people have their heart below their belt.
If two people with hearts below the belt can use those general principles
two people (usually Christians) with proper and honorable intentions can use those principles too.
It does seem, however, that in any case, one must get into one's heart first, and that path is nonverbal and culturally scripted.
This is what I said about the article (buried underneath spam)
Re: The Secrets to Successful Flirting (Score: 1)
by GuessWho Friday, August 24 @ 15:03:31 EDT
(User Info | Send a Message)
I bought all three books referenced by Groovy Druid in reference to seeking women. Two (Valentine and Louis, Copeland) seem to emphasize the relevance of getting into a woman's heart to get into something else she has. However, the honorable gentleman should not be put off by that emphasis. People of both genders can have their heart in many places. Where your treasure is, there your treasure is also (Bible). It starts with a woman's heart, regardless of where the destination is. I read the note about "you made her like you not love you" with profound sadness. I had no difficulty making female friends from the college era. The woman friend is always the precursor to a girlfriend, I think. She may be stuck (neotanized) in the role of a friend for lack of the romantic stimulation she is craving like an axolotl cannot metamorphose into a tiger salamander for lack of iodine. Until someone else helps her metamophose into a fully romantic female with the right stimulation. It also makes me sad that character and intelligence need not be present for this to happen. Autistics are frequently strong in a rigid sense of moral character, and Aspergians frequently have the intelligence and curiosity too. All she needs is a caveman named Stu that can stimulate her romantic pleasure center regardless of Stu'd criminal record. They should tell college-aged Aspergians this because it frequently matters as the pool of available women shrinks with age. And maybe they should tell the women why they make the choices they do, and that by adding a little time, intelligence, and (best of all) a volunteer opportunity to observe the guy in real life they can weed out the bad apples.
[ Reply to This ]
Correction (Score: 1)
by GuessWho Friday, August 24 @ 15:10:32 EDT
(User Info | Send a Message)
"Your heart will be where your treasure is" -Jesus Christ Matthew 6:21, New Century Version Where your heart is, there your treasure will be also.
[ Reply to This ]
That is why I identified so strongly with the movie Shrek. Many NTs form their own opinion at a distance and never get close enough to challenge it.
Thanks Max.
Oh, and my first gf was too much like Fiona. Fiesty, a potential temper, could take care of herself (and was briefly in the US Army, but not a Marine, sorry, and not nearsighted).
Case in point: She, my brother and I, 1994 (before dating)
She lifted my brother off the ground. I laughed at her saying she would never lift me off the ground.
"Stand up! Turn around!"
She lifted me six inches off the ground. Talk about Army Strong.
------------------
And then there was the wedding I was going to sit out. Three years before we dated, she practically ordered me to attend, whether I was favorably disposed to the couple or not, because she hadn't seen me in a while.
Lately I have had a curious fascination with the Phantom of the Opera, and I have the following questions:
1. Who made the monster in Erik? I'm thinking it started with other people, but continued very well with the Phantom's acquiesence.
2. Do people need to invent monsters out of nothing at all?
3. Why did Erik, the Phantom, acquiese to think of himself as a monster and therefore unwanted by lady folk?
4. The Phantom, Erik, was capable of evil, and did some, but was also capable of good, and released Christine and Raoul.
5. What caused Erik, the Phantom, to die? Suicide? Broken heart?
6. Erik, The Phantom, was obviously intelligent and very skilled (a builder). Why was a public career impossible?
7. Intriguing is Christine's final actions with respect to Erik, letting him kiss her, kissing him back, crying with him, ultimately burying him (book version).
8. Movie adaptation: Erik stays away from Raoul and Christine until she dies, and leaves a rose and a ring at her grave. Also very intriguing, but why the worst case scenario story line?
We need to be careful with that plot. It is way too tempting to fall into, especially the fact that Erik's death by suicide is an open question.
Beauty and the Beast (TV series) and Disney movie seem interesting as well, which seem to do the "monster" character justice, ultimately leading to the Shrek trilogy.
Actually I am starting to think that Phantom of the Opera, although it should not be censored from school libraries because censorship is un-American, posits a strong suicide risk, and should have some kind of cautionary statement about it. It is also very dangerous in that it may be interpreted as justifying the wrongful actions of a "monster" (kidnapping, false imprisonment) because he is regarded as a monster.
On the other hand, it is useful to critique the book seriously. Why did Erik adopt the personality of a monster after quite a while of being treated like one? Is this dangerous?
1. How many monsters have prejudice created?
(my original query was whether or not prejudice has created criminals, and I wonder how many of those are Asperger, though the greater worry might be racism, African Americans numbering in the tens of millions or 12% of America's population)
2. How many suicides has the book inspired (note the last chapter in Erik's first person voice)?
How many other people see a glorification of suicide in the Phantom of the Opera
adversarial, this is important. It may confirm a theory in Wikipedia.
1. Have you asked these women confidently (positively)? Are we talking about the cold as ice rejection we see in
Legally Blonde of Elle's law student classmate before she pretends to be his dumped girlfriend (in front of the undergrads, itself a possible confirmation of Max the Bear's thesis on young women, poor critical thinking skills, and the mistakes they make)
2. What can this tell us about Wikipedia's March 2007 thesis (under Nerd), popular culture frequently depicts nerds as lovelorn, chasing women above their social status, and if they persist in doing so and seem the least bit obnoxious (to the NT girl), they will be rebuffed, brought down a peg (which constitutes humor, and is used to sell Mike's Hard Lemonade)
------------------------------------------------------
Are you from Nashville, because you're the only tenn I see?
Do you believe in love at first sight or should I walk by again?"
May I buy you a drink or would you rather have the cash?
(guy she is with)
All right, you have until the count of three to..... (she head butts the geek)
That works.
In my experience, whenever I have been stupid enough to take a liking to a girl, I have always been rejected outright and even disliked and despised for having such feelings. I cannot help but notice the sort of dross that women do gravitate towards in many instances and all that does is to reinforce the negative self-image that is imposed by this invidious state of affairs.
I simply don't exist as a viable potentiality in most women's minds and I am not supposed to be bitter and twisted about it after 42 years of being made to feel like sh*? I think I'll make up my own mind on that one!
Well Max, you're really not all that bright.
Ziyaret, this is not a true statement at all. I believe you know that.
I appreciate Erkolos, and tenaciouscj for wanting to get back on topic.
Max's statement about my intelligence is equally untrue.
It really isn't a contest is it? The smart thing would be to move on.
My husband got a girlfriend, and then a wife-
er.. the same person 
So it is possible! We get along-then we don't, and then we do again. We work at respecting our differences and spend lots of time alone together-which fits us both well.