Are women sexist against their fellow women?

Post Reply New Topic

First of all, like I said there are also dating tips where I read it.

Secondly, even if it is only true for these two women, I would still want to know what is really in their head that made them think that way, simply because I feel JUDGED. So, even if the generalization isn't true, it doesn't change the fact taht I was judged and I want to know on what basis.




This approach makes the most sense to me. I don't see a point of dating strangers either.

However, what bothers me is that it seems that most of the women (NOT you) operate in just the opposite way. They feel that a relationship that is based on friendship is "old fashioned" which proves that the guy is not macho, and thus they would reject a guy just on the bases of the fact taht they were friends for a while. For example, as far as Katie is concerned, she rejected me for reason X. Then half a year later I told her that X is wrong. She was then appologising to me for HAVING (NOTICE PAST TENSE) had jumped to conclusions. However, she was still wanting to only be friends. Now, given taht she appologised for her original thoughts, she acknowledged that they are wrong. So, in that there was a past tense, there is an implicit assumption here. Namely, for her, a relationship can ONLY happen within few days of meeting someone. So, the fact that we knew each other for half a year was basically rulling out the possibility of a relationship. This was so obvious, that it was in a category of "unspoken rules". She didn't even have to explain her present actions. All she had to do was appologised for PAST actions, as if it is for granted that there is no such thing as starting a relationship half a year down the road.

AND NO THIS IS NOT JUST THIS GIRL. I READ ON DATING TIPS THAT IF YOU ARE IN A "FRIEND" CATEGORY WITH A WOMAN, AND YOU WANT A TURN AROUND, THEN YOU WILL HAVE MUCH BETTER CHANCE IF YOU ARE GOING TO STOP TALKING TO HER FOR A FEW MONTHS. THAT WAY, YOU WILL BE A STRANGER INSTEAD OF A FRIEND, AND STRANGERS ALWAYS HAVE MORE CHANCE THAN FRIENDS DO. I can back it off with this quote from the last paragraph of the link http://www.fastseduction.com/guide/06_T ... ljbf.shtml




Now to me it absolutely makes no sense. Why would strangers have more chance than friends? The only possible answer I can come up with is that friend ==> emotional connection ==> weakness (soldiers don't need emotional connection). And this would lead to all of my theories of how boyfriend = champion and stuff like that. I know they are silly theories. But you see, I simply don't UNDERSTAND why strangers have more chance than friends, so I am basically forced to be silly.

Let me put it another way. Personally, I really feel that it would make sense to first be freinds and then base a relationship on friendship. First of all, it will help you to make better decision on whom you want to be with. Secondly, you will have more in common this way. So, basically, the fact that people do just the opposite to what from my perspective would make the most sense, forces me to theorize of just what can possibly go in their heads? Why would they possibly choose stranger over someone they know? The only possible explanation I can come up with is that the fact that a person is able to operate FAST indicates that he is macho which makes him superior to someone else who was friends first.



Okay, like I mentioned few times, I don't believe in pre-marital sex for religious reasons. So how can I possibly "only want sex" if I am not looking for sex to start with? In fact, to prove my point, with both of my ex-s it went to the point when THEY were trying to push me into something and I kept telling no because my religion teaches otherwise.

By the way, if sex was part of the picture, then I would feel MUCH better about the whole situation. For one thing, I would know exactly WHY a woman wants to be friends as opposed to relationship -- she likes me as a person but she doesn't want to have sex with me. But you see, given that I am NOT looking for sex, thigns are a lot more complicated because I simply can't point a finger on anything that would distinguish friendship from relationship. If sex was possible, then lack of sexual attraction would be legitimate argument against a relationshp. However, since sex is NOT possible, I don't see why not call someone a "boyfriend" WIHTOUT being sexually attracted to him. The only possible reason why would sexual attraction be important in case of someone who doesn't want to have sex, is that a woman wants to give you a TITLE for what you can or can't make her feel. As a result of this, I am forced to say that relationship is about a TITLE, and therefore I feel hurt that I am not given a title.

On any event, going back to the conversation, I just wanted to correct you when you said I was only looking for sex, because as you can see, I am against sex because of my religion.



I am not blaming a woman. I simply feel inferior due to the fact that I lost a game. If I were to blame a woman, I won't have to feel inferior. I would of simply said that this particular girl happened to be a b***h, which means that it is her and not me. What I DO blame is the game. Now, blaming the game does NOT mean blaming all women collectively. The rules of the game are based on society as a whole, not just women. In fact, it is entirely possible that it is MEN's fault. Here is one possible scenario. Men wanted to feel superior so they wanted to be leaders in a family. So, throughout generations, such concept was established. As a result of this, women are looking for a leader instead of an equal due to the fact that sexism that MEN invented have reached very deeply into woman's subconsciousness. Now, since woman look for a leader, this would cause them to come up with all kinds of "tests" for the leadership skills of men, which would ultimately make me fail their tests since I don't have any. BOTTOM LINE: in this scenario sexism (i.e. men) are to blame. So I am not blaming women here. By the way that is why i came up with a title "are women sexist against their fellow women".



Okay, this makes sense. In other words, you are basically saying that the reason they act insecure is similar to a reason why bank robber would act insecure, namely they are trying to do something they shouldn't be doing. So speaking of that category of guys I 100% agree with you. But the point is that it doesn't apply to me. I guess I might try to theorize and say that when I act insecure for some totally different reason, a woman would compare me to the other guys who act insecure and assume, incorrectly, that my reasons and theirs are the same. Again, this would still make sense. No one wants to be manipulated, so yes it would make sense to protect yourself just in case.

But you see, the problem is that I was rejected by some women who knew why I was insecure and never accused me of being sexual predator. I can even prove to you that this never went throught their mind. Speaking of Anne, she decided that I was insecure because I told her how my mom still treats me like a child, and Anne incorrectly concluded that this is the type of treatment that I want (when in fact this is what I HATE my mother for). So, this has nothing to do with wanting sex. And this has nothing to do with manipulating someone into sex since it is something that happends between me and my mom, and I am not trying to go to bed with my mom.

So in other words, lets say A=wanting to have sex. B=needing sheltering. C= insecure. We know that A ==>C and B==>C. A is something to be feared of. Now, I agree with you that when it comes to SAFETY sometimes you have to let go of concepts such as "innocent till proven guilty". Therefore, if you observe C, it is reasonable to walk away just IN CASE it is A that causes it. HOWEVER, the problem is that Anne never observed C. She observed B, and then used B==>C logic. In this case, she knows for a fact that the cause for C is B and NOT an A. Therefore, it won't make sense for her to refuse a relationship in order to try to avoid A, since she knows it is B.





Actually it is good that you gave me this link because it spends much more time discussing general insecurity issues as opposed to just sex, and thus it getts much closer to my issues. I guess to sum it up what I have seen in the links from that page are the following:

1. Insecure guys keep whining and whining is repulsive
2. Nice guys unconsciously use doble standard in their expectations for themselves verses others
3. When nice guys put woman in a pedestal it creates unreasonable expectations for her, which she would inevitably fail to accomplish which would cause a guy to be mad at her
4. The same statement can be viewed from two different perspectives as either positive or negative. For example, when a guy puts a woman on pedestal, from his point of view he is showing her how great she is. But from her point of view, she is now an object instead of a person which puts her into subhuman category.

However, I have problems with these. Let me tell you what they are, one by one:

PART 1:

This part raises two questions:

a)This part basically says that there is a line drawn between "moderately insecure" and "way too insecure", otherwise you won't know what the word "whining" means. But you see, whenever people draw such lines, it is totally unfair for people like me who have Asperger's. A lot of such lines are based on what you observe most people do or not do. So, from the perspective of someone who has Asperger, I know that to me none of my behavior is extreme. It is simply that OTHER PEOPLE happened to be SO MUCH ALIKE that they view it as extreme.

b)Okay suppose I simply assume that there is such a line -- after all most people aren't familiar with Asperger. But the question is, why is whining a bad thing anyway? Like stated earlier, whining is an extreme form of insecurity. Therefore, to say that whining is bad, you have to assume taht insecurity is bad, even though it would be less bad when presented in moderate form. In other words, when you are saying that insecure people whine, you are basically begging a question.


PART 2:

As far as this part, my objection is that everyone have subconscious biases, and people are simply unaware of them. I DO admit that these biases are real. In fact, back in 2001, after I was hurt, I have analyzed my own thinking and came to the exact same conclusions that this site came to. Basically I DO try to manipulate people and, due to the fact that this assumption is so basic, I am diong it without even noticing it much like when I go down the stairs the muscles of my legs would act differently than when I walk on flat ground, even though I would NOT be making conscious decisions to do so.

But you see, the fact that it doesn't involve conscious decisions is precisely the point of my objection here. Granted, if you start off from the decisions I DO make and trace a logic, then I would get these biases. But you see, no matter how high my IQ is, it is still limitted. Therefore, if A ==> B ==> C ==> ... ==> Z, then being consciously aware of A does NOT make me consciously aware of Z.

In fact, back in 2001 it took me half a year to realize how all of my thinking was made on implicit assumptions. After taht, I would always try to look back on every single screwup I have ever since, and trace my thinking to come to the same conclusion. Even though once I got a concept it was taking me few days instead of half a year, few days is still a long time. So the question is how would you expect ANYONE to do few days worth of thining within a few seconds that you have to think what you are going to say in each particular conversation?

I guess may be you can say that part of a dillema here is that people can decide what to DO but they can't decide what to FEEL. So if someone is interested in finding a person who genuenely cares about them, the only way to trully test how someone feels is to look for things that they can not control. The bad side of this, of course, is that this lumps people with disabilities such as Asperger's in the same category, since Asperger is precisely about not being able to control some little things. You can argue that this parallels a different dillema, namely the fact that someone who is trully egotistical is also being given unreasonable demand in a sense that he is asked to feel something he naturally doesn't, and like mentioned few lines earlier, emotions are things one can't control (unless you take some mood altering drugs or something).

On the surface you might simply try to make a claim that people with Asperger are, indeed, not caring, and their inability to remember little things is evidence for it. However, the point is that if you analyze a reasoning of ANYONE ON THE PLANET hard enough, what you will find is that we are ALL egotistical, and we are ALL manipulating people. For example, applying to college or looking for a job is egotistical because the number of free spots is limitted so by successfully getting in, you are preventing someone else from getting in. Of course you can say that may be this only applies to strangers but not to friends. But since we are talking about psychology here, I can basically point out to you that little children are quite egotistical even with their closest friends. Then as they grow, by REWARD AND PUNISHMENT they are being taught to care about other people. Therefore, this implies that every single adult in the planet cares about others only because this concept of reward and punishment got so deeply ingrained into their head that they aren't even aware of it.

So, this leads me back to saying that the difference between me and others is NOT that I manipulate more than they do. Rather, it is that I am less capable in HIDING it. In fact, we all know that NT-s manipulate people much MORE than aspies ever do. In fact, perhaps the fact that OTHERS are so used to manipulating each other is where my problem is. Okay, let me give you an example. So okay, one of my problems with people is that I forget to smile and say hi. But you see, there is nothing NEGATIVE about my not smiling and not saying hi to others. After all I don't tell them anything bad either. I simply don't say anything, so it is "neutral". The reason it comes across as negative is that OTHERS are being manipulative in that they are LYING to each other that they care for them more than they actually do. In particular, in neutral situation people lie to each other that it is positive. In negative situation, they lie to each other taht it is neutral. Therefore, when I TELL THE TRUTH that something is neutral, people would compare me to the ones who LIE that it is neutral, and thus they would assume that I mean it is negative. After all, if I am the only person in the planet who says the truth then there is no way for anyone to know that it is the case. Now, I know that smiling and saying hi is not lying but being polite. The point I am trying to make is that being polite involves SUBCONSCIOUS lying, much like the manipulativeness discussed in that site was subconscious.

Now, lets put it together with my previous admission of manipulating others. Well, so now that we are talking about smiling and saying hi, I can make an excelent case of why I manipulate ppl. So, I am saying that other people are "neutral" to me. On the other hand, I am upset that they aren't talking to me. So I am using double standart. When i forget to smile and say hi, I say I am being neutral. On the other hand, when others aren't talking to me, I am saying they are being negative. So, when I am trying to be "nice" by doing X, I am proving myself a manipulator in that I do X to someone I won't even want to say hi to. Fine, but now lets compare it to how much others manipulate. You see, I have established that others don't want to say hi to each other either, they are doing it just to manipulate each other (otherwise little children won't need to be taught to say hi). Therefore, if you take someone who DOES say hi to others and ALSO does X, he is manipulating others MORE than I do. I am only guilty of doing X without meaning to. On the other hand, that other person is guilty of saying hi without meaning to AND doing X without meaning to. But, ironically, I am judged to be manipulator and he isn't. Why? Because he manipulated others much more than I did, and one paft of his manipulation was to cover the fact that he manipulates!

Furthermore, in my case, I can simply say that most of the manipulations I am guilty of, I have been PULLED INTO by others. Up untill I graduated college, I didn't even want any kind of relationship or friendship either. Math and physics were the only things I needed in life. Then when I started graduate school, my mom wanted me to go to Jewish club because she was worried that I was living far from home and was thinking I needed to make friends. Then I was hurt on the fact that I couldn't have a conversation, which goes back to the issue of me being HONESTLY neutral while others being so used to manipulation that they perceived honesty as negative. And then, as a consequence of having been hurt, I needed a girlfriend in order to disprove the statement that everyone hates me. So, the root of my being hurt is manipulativeness of OTHERS (i.e. how they expect each otehr to LIE when they say "nice to meet you") and I was merely infected by it. Naturally, since due to Asperger I am wired to be naive, I am not as good in covering manipulativeness I am INFECTED with, as compared to the way others cover their manipulativeness they are BORN with. Hence, I get all the blame for something others are more guilty of than I am.

So the conclusion is that yes nice guys do manipulate. But they manipulate less than others do and thats why they are the only ones whose manipulation is left uncovered.

PART 3

Three objections:

a)While I know from the history of my two ex-s that my insecurities indeed DID lead to fights, there was no way for Anne to know it. You can say she knew it from her experience with other guys, but I really doubt it. I mean she didn't view me as someone who is going to start arguing with her; she viewed me as just the opposite, someone she could open up to.

b)Suppose, indeed, it is true that due to my insecurities no matter how much is done for me it is never enough. But still, isn't something better than nothing? Why is "not doing enough" worse than "not doing at all" (refusing a relationship)

c)In case of Anne, since the friendship was just like a relationship, in what way calling it a relationship would create any problems that won't be there if it was friendship?


PART 4

I can make the same objection I did in part 2 where I said that subconsciousness is something that is outside ANYONE's control. Appart from that, it is also possible to care about other people in ALL levels (both conscious and subconscious) and simply fail to realize the point made in part 4. For example, if you like icecream, you can assume everyone likes icecream without any negative things applied. So, the only way to know bad it feels to be put on a pedestal, is to experience it yourself. So, if you havne't experienced all the expectations and pressures that go with it, you might simply assume that it is a good thing and you are not to blame for such an assumption.




What are you referring to when you are saying she is not psychologically healthy?



The only reason I am doing it is that I simply don't understand the reasoning of the girls I came in contact with, so my mind fills in blanks. In fact it is NOT convenient. I mean these kinds of thoughts are the ones taht hurt me the MOST. I would much rather simply tell myself that I was making a woman feel uncomfortable by doing X and making it friendship instead of relationship will protect her from X because of Y. But you see I was trying to come up with such explanations for like a year ever since I met Anne and i wasn't able to do it. So this left me with ridiculous explanations in terms of rules of the game and not receiving credit, and this is the one that hurts me the most so I most definitely do NOT want to think of it this way, I just can't help.



Because of my Asperger's I don't have a SKILL of being a jock rather than jeek. So, no matter how many times they said it to me on the advise, there is nothing I can do about it.



Yah but the dating site advise was based on a lot of surveys of real relationships. Besides, David DeAngelo claims that when he was nice guy all he had was failure with women but once he stopped being nice guy women are all over him. So it isn't one or two women. I presume he probably meet dozens of them.

OMG, wow....

Well..... yikes, yeah this is such a complicated and rich topic, and its quite hard to keep track of all the great points, but once again, I will say that everyone is different. Generalising or trying to take note of what seems to be the 'rules' will not really help you. It ALL boils down to about being YOURSELF. Being respectable to women, and nice and be who YOU are. And you know what? If they don't like you, sucks for them (good for you). Who needs em then? I know, much like me, you are an Aspie trying to make sense of these complicated rules, and maybe like me you even actually desire to be more normal and to fit into 'their' world, and have them accept us, but it just isn't going to happen so easily, nor with everyone you meet. You can only follow your OWN rules, your OWN gut instinct. And if you don't get the girl, move on, try another. Until eventually it works and you find someone who truely appreciates you for YOU, not for trying to pretend to be what you think girls want a man to be, just be YOU. At the end of the day, its really all you can do.

I sure as heck don't want some cookie-cutter man thats just another player and what most women might want. I want someone unique, someone who I will love and who will love me. Isn't that how its SUPPOSED to work? Who made a game out of all this? I think its pretty sick.

To me, there is no such thing as romantic dating just out of the blue. Am I going to want to kiss someone I barely know? Heck no. Well maybe if he's really cute, but no, I still won't be comfortable enough unless I feel emotionally connected to him AND physically connected and attracted. You CAN have emotional feelings about someone without them being a boyfriend or girlfriend. If I had a best friend, a woman, who I really feel close to, does that automatically make me a lesbian? No, because I am 100% straight and you can feel different kinds of closeness with people without being in love with them. I mean PLEASE don't tell me you have feelings about wanting to bang your Mom.... This is how rediculous some of your rules look to me, no offense. lol. See? There are different kinds of love, and closeless. I think the thing about best friends is people don't want to risk turning that into a romance relationship, because if it feels too awkard, if it doesn't work out, then its really weird to just go back to being friends. They don't want to risk the friendship so they just stay friends.

HOWEVER, if you feel physically attracted to someone right away and you get to know them and you feel even closer to them, who says you can't be friends AND romantically involved? You are not just picturing boyfriend and girlfriend who kiss and makeout and have sex right? They actually do other things.... they hang out, they do bowling or pool, go for a dance, maybe the roller coasters in the summer, just like friends do etc..... But they also feel even closer than that,and they will kiss.

I don't know. I'm not exactly a social expert or dating expert, so I'm not the best for advice here. I'm just saying the way I think it works...


Now let me go over some of your rules that you think guys have to follow. I dont know what most women might think, as I can't understand them myself, but I might understand what I think anyway (ofcourse I'm not a NT female, but an Aspie one).


Whether guys needs to have confidence:

I think this is one of those rules that follows that women want a 'manly man'. A tough man. A tough man usually would have the guts to ask a lady out, or to compliment her and flirt with her to make it easier on the lady. I have no idea where this idea came from, but its a traditional thought that this is how guys should be. I really feel aweful for the poor shy men out there who aren't confident who try to date! But, you also might hear that women might like SENSITIVE guys. Well I dont know how many confident men are sensitive, but generally you might get one trait and not the other. They generally aren't together.

For ME, I like a confident man, maybe not TOO confident, I think its pretty cute that he would be shy and trying to hide it, but, he HAS to be more confident than I am atleast because I am terribly shy! I need someone who could help me out a little bit to help me feel good about myself and lose some of the shyness. I just need a confident man because of my really shy nature. Two shy people together....Not alot going on there I imagine.


Nice Guys Finish Last?:

It depends. How nice are we talking? So nice that the woman can act like a bully and make the guy say YES to everything? That he doesn't have his own soul anymore and essentially the WOMAN is taking control of the whole relationship? It depends because, if he is SO nice, and he opens up RIGHT AWAY, that really seems suspicious.... You are supposed to have caution in the beginning and not wear your heart on your sleeve, until you feel more confortable, and THEN you open up slowly, later on.... Both of you do. Nice guys finish last? What kind of messed up rule is this? Does this mean Jerks finish first? Well congratulations for them. They win the grand prize! Whores! Whores and Jerks deserve each other. Let them have their stupid rules =P You don't have to be a part of it.

Guys should really be romantic, nice, compassionate, sensitive, but in the right ways, at the right time, after you are that far in the relationship I suppose. If you are too nice too early on, you might end up, again, seemly not manly enough. For straight women, they want a tough, manly man (unless they don't, everyone has their tastes). Emotions that ARE there, but, it takes a bit of work to get at them. Don't feed the women these emotions so easily, let them work for them.

Uh... Idont know if I'm making ANY sense! I think I am only going by what makes sense for ME, but as we've establed, I am NOT like most women. I don't know what most women are, and frankly, I am glad to not be one of them.

I am just saying, there are certainly qualities women look for in men, that are, well, MANLY. Because, otherwise we'd be a lesbian right? Well not necessarily. Some women like to have really cute and senstive types, but, I like to have a balance that is still manly but still caring. I mean men are people too, and they care too! I just want that balance that tells me 'I am a man, not a p****, but I love you'

Well that was an insulting way to put it.... Damn I suck at this! lol I apologise if I offended anyone. I'm trying to think how NTs think and you know how confusing that is!


I think part of the problem comes from, when a woman politely says: 'you're a nice guy, but....' Well? Don't focus on the first part! It is what ELSE she was thinking, what she didnt want to SAY because it would have been rude, which is the reason why its not gonna work.

I'll tell you an example. there was this guy stalking me in college. He was really nice, and I liked talking to him, but he was just.... REPULSIVE to be a boyfriend! He had so many off putting physical traits that I didn't like, I just really wasn't attracted at all, quite the other way. So don't automatically chalk it up to 'nice guys finish last'. First off, its not always true. Second, its only true for those trashy women who like it rough in bed and not much else I think, and thirdly, you can be nice but if thats about all you have going for yourself, maybe its not enough? And it always depends on the women and the guy.


As for my friend, heck if I know! It's just a really great friendship, and it feels like, yeah, we appreciate each other this way and we don't want to mess it up by trying to be a boyfriend and girlfriend. Why mess up a good thing? But its good too, cause he lives too far away,and it would be much too painful if I was in love with him and wanted to hold him. but it does suck anyway that we can't spend time together as friends.


The bottom line: You can't tell what everyone is like, and you can only follow your OWN rules and be yourself. There are SOME good rules. I mean, if you wanna date a girl, don't go up to her and grab her breast or something =P But thats obvious. Just take your time and figure it out on your own terms. If you feel like NTs are too much of a headacke to bother with, maybe just try looking for Aspie women then?

I guess basically they don't dislike me, but rather they dislike their IDEA of me which doesn't correspond to who I am. For example, suppose you asked me to pick between apples and oranges, and I picked orange. Then you think I don't like apples. But the point is that it was simply a random pick. So if I knew that you expected me to pick apple, I would pick apple. So, in a sense, yah I would adjust to your expectation. But at the same time, it won't be anything close to pretending to be someone I am not, because I like both fruits just the same. So do you see what I am saying? Basically, people are trying to put me in a category. They think I am either one OR another, nothing in between. This type of thinking logically implies that I can be judged by my actions since the fact taht I did A in one occasion implies that I am among a group of people who do A, which means I always do A. And then, putting things in categories and comming up with rules of a game goes hand in hand with each other.



But you see, in order to "romantic relationship" to have more potential of feeling awkward than "friendship", there has to be difference between these terms. So my question is what IS that difference, given that I don't believe in premarital sex on the first place? If sex is not a factor, the only possible thing I can think of is a prestige factor of being called "boyfriend". And if it is only about prestige, then what does it mean for it not to "work out"? The only possible answer is that the girl realizes that the boy doesn't deserve such a prestige title. And *IF* both of the above takes place, then I can see how it would be hard to be freinds again since the guy would be pissed off about his title being taken away. But still it doesn't change the point that it is all about title. After all, for some reason the boyfriend verses freind line stays there, even when it comes to someone like me who doesn't believe in premarital sex.




That is something I don't understand either. But, for some weird reason I read in dating tips that "freinds" is "dreaded 6 letter F word", and once it is pronounced, you can't have a relationship.

Okay lets put it this way. When you are LJBF-ed, but you want a turn around, they say you will increase your chances by being a stranger instead of a friend in order not to fall into "friend" role. But you see, if the reason you were LJBF-ed is "only" lack of emotional connection, I don't see why you will build one by being a stranger. The only way I can explain such paradox is to say that somehow friend is opposite to partner. The reason it is opposite is that you expect a partner to be "manly man" as you put it. On the other hand, a friend is someone you can share things with, so friend won't be a manly man. In fact, you have more female freidns than you do man freinds, which supports my point.




No, I am not. In fact, I am talking about people who don't believe in premarital sex (at least a male doesn't believe in one, in my case). Thats why there is a question of how would you define boyfriend verses freind appart from sex. And ineviteable conclusion I come up with is the prestigious title which leads me to all the "rules".




Exactly, and this is the source of my quetion. Given that firends and partners do exact same thing, I don't see why didn't Anne want to call me her "boyfriend".




Me and Anne were very close, even though we were just friends.

Also, as for Katie, she told me it is the opposite -- friends are closer than partners. After all, according to what she said, if you wnat to be happy in a relationship you need to be ahppy with yourself first. On the other hand, if you are not happy with yourself, then you shoul dmake friends because friends are the ones you can go to for comfort. As Kaite put it "relationships come and go, but freinds are meant to stay".



In case of long distance relationships, they don't kiss. So this leads me to asking why is attraction important when it comes to choosing between long distance relationship and long distance friendship? What is the difference between the two?




But didn't you tell me in the beginning of the post that the most important thing si for me to "be myself"? So what if I am not tough?

It seems that your two statements contradict each other

1)I have to be myself (beginning of the post)
2)I have to be tough (your statement right now)



So how come you are following the tradition if you said it yourself in the beginning of the post that the most important thing is to be myself and follow my own rules?




See, you feel aweful for them, but you still won't date them. The only way to explain it is that you are "bound" by the rules. So you so wish you could just date them and make them feel better, but you can't because you can't break the rules.



You see, personally I feel that sensitive is the ONLy thing that is important. So, the fact that confidence also matters would imply that there are some kind of rules that women have to compromise their feelings in order to obey them.




But you see, you just explained how nice guys can hurt THEMSELVES by being nice. But I don't see how it will hurt the woman -- in fact it should do a favor to a woman since she can manipulate them. So, this doesn't explain why nice guys would finish last.




This again leads me to asking you how come you are saying two contradictory things. On the one hand, you look down on the whole situation of nice guys finishing last, but on the other hand you have acknowledged that you are part of it by saying that you want a "manly man".

By the way Anne was similar in this respect. I remember how she was looking down on everyone who judges each other by their actions and just do shallow things like her office mates playing video games all day long and at the same time they call her "snob" when she tries to open up to people. She even asked me if I feel lucky that I have Asperger because I am not part of it.

I guess this is what lead me to propose to her because I felt that we might have a lot in common when it comes to above feelings. But then after I proposed to her, she turned me down based on the fact that I am not "confident". So, ironically, she plays that very game that she herself condemns.

To me it seems like a lot of people do that. I have always been disappointed when I took it to heart when someone says that she don't like to play games, only to discover that she does play that very game, she just doesn't "smell her own stink" so to speak.



But WHY is it important to be manly, unless there are RULES or whatever that says it important?



But you see, from logic point of view, IF the purpose of relationship is emotions, then you should feed women emotions the sooner the better, and the more the better. So logic tells us that purpose of relationship is NOT emotions. Rather, it is manliness. And why manliness? Because the point of relationship is prestige, NOT connection.





That actually supports the point I am trying to make in this post. Basically, you have blurred out a line between two genders, and thus some of the weaker men are falling in "in-between" category which rules them out as partners. But now that we no longer have two distinct genders but rather "a spectrum", I can make a point that strong verses weak is a decider factor in a relationship as opposed to body parts. After all, the former is a spectrum and the latter isn't. Once I have established that point, I can go on to claim that the reason women are rulled out is BECAUSE they are week. Thus, in order for this to happen, each woman has to assume that ALL other women are week. In other words, a woman has to be sexist against her own gender.

This also supports my theory that firends and partners don't go together. After all, a woman prefers her fellow women for friends. So now that the line between two genders had been blured, no wonder that woman would also want a weeker men to be her friends since weeker men are, in a sense, women. SO, from the fact that woman has more female friends than male friends, I can conclude that weeker men have MORE chances to be frends with a woman then stronger men do. This would be diametrically opposite to what happends when ti comes to choice of a partner. The only way to explain this dichotomy is to say that friendship is aobut emotional connection while relationship is about prestige. So women want weeker "people" for their friends since weeker people have more emotions and would be better source of emotional connection. But at the same time they want stronger "people" for their partners since it is prestigious to be strong.



But you see, the definition of "balanse" depends on reference frame. For example for me if I will try my hardest to be NT, I would view myself as "extremely NT", but for others I would still be "weird". On the other hand, if I am "being myself", I will view myself as balanced, but for others I am "extremely weird".

So, basically, the whole concept of balanse is a result that we all are so much alike. Thats why from the perspective of someone who is NOT like others, whenever I hear the word "balance" I know that they are really talking about "rules of the game" since the very concept of balance is PART of that game.



But sometimes a woman says that she turns you down BECAUSE you are nice -- like for example thats what Anne did.



In case of this guy it was a coincidence taht he was nice and YET had these repulsive traits. But the part that I want to know is how come there is STATISTICAL CORRELATION between being nice and being rejected.



Again the question is what is the DIFFERENCE between boyfrined/girlfriend and just friends? You see, if there is no difference, there is no way that changing of a word can mess anything up. But if there is difference, what is it? I don't see one given that you live far away. So the only thing I can come up with is my theory about the "title" and "prestige".



But if you were to call him "boyfriend" how would it make you want to hold him? After all, you can't change chemistry of your brain. You either have that desire, or you don't. Simply calling someone a friend or a boyfriend can't automatically make the desire (or lack of it) go away.

For one thing, you can't be sexist against the same sex, and for another: it would probably be prejudice

How about female Christians who wear head covering? That tradition is originated from passage in 1 Cor 11, and that passage explains that the head covering in a woman is a symbolic of the fact that woman has something above her (i.e. a man). So, in other words, all the women that willingly wear head covering for religious reasons are supportive of sexist idea that man is a head of a woman.

I believe that when woman is looking for confidence in a man, it is really the result of that same tradition being ingrained into her head. Basically, since she believes a man should be a head of a relationship, of course it would require him to be confident.

So both head covering and looking for someone confident is sexist. But since the latter is more common than a former, a latter prejudice is something women overlook in themselves, even if they consider themselves femisists. You see, it is quite common to denounce something and YET overlook that very thing in situations that you are too used for. I have also mentioned this in my response to Solidess.

This is not just about gender. It is perfectly possible to be racist against one's own race. For example, Hitler's mother was Jewish. I also heard that the person who first proposed idea of inquisition was Jewish convert to Christianity, although I don't remember his name. Also Karl Marx is another example of a Jew who hates his own people. It isn't just him. Most of the founders of communism are Jewish. Yet, Jews experienced a lot of discrimination in communist soviet union so this should tell you something.

In fact it is even truer on a broader scale. Christianity itself is invented by Jews who hated their own culture. And I can go further and say that New Testament antisemitism finds support in the Old Testament, so Jews condemn themselves in their own writings. And, in fact, Jews do believe that antisemitism can be viewed as god's way of punishing jewish people for disobedience.

There are also a number of blacks who are racist against other blacks. Although I don't know much about the subject, I believe that Jacie Jackson is one such person.

Then of course disabled is another minority, and this minority is almost exclusively prejudiced against itself. Any aspie trying to play NT would be a good example of this sort of thing.

By the way, I think it is perfectly logical to be hateful against one's own group of people. The fact that you personally happen to belong there doesn't LOGICALLY imply that there is nothing wrong about that group. So, one reason for self-hatred is simple honesty. But as far as this post is conserned, probably other reasons are more relevent. And they would include the need to submit to the "winner's" standarts in order to at least get a benefit of idenifying with "winner's " point of view.

It is quite clear how it would look for women. After all sexist men won't be looking down on woman because she is a woman (after all, their wife is a woman). Instead, they would look down on her for the fact that she is a woman AND a politician or that she is a woman AND an engineer, etc. So, it would be to woman's benefit to be sexist against herself in order for others to approve her. Of course, I still say it is sexist because she has ingrained into her head how she can NOT be such and such. So it is by no means a healthy way of doing things -- much healthier alternative would be to change society's mind by proving them wrong through being the best engeneer around. So in this sense it is sexist. But then if you think for too long on what you SHOULD do to plese others, you eventually brainwash yourself to the point of believing it and actually being sexist.

It is quite possible that what happends in their choice of boyfriends is similar. Suppose a woman choses a really weak boyfriend. Then sexists would look down on her for being a head of the relationship. Ironically, even though it is her partner who is insecure, SHE will receive all the blame for it as far as sexists are concerned. So, she feels pressure to submit to the standart of the sexists and choose strong and confident partner.

Of coures there might be also pressure from other women when it comes to them talking about who has cooler boyfriend. But you see, guys are also competting on who has cooler girlfriend, but it doesn't force guys to look for physical strength in their girlfriends. So, even if this be competition and pressures among women, still it has originated from sexist standarts of society in general.

So basically if Jews can be racist against Jews, blacks can be racist against blacks, aspies can be prejudised against aspies, then women can also be sexist against women. And yes there are plenty of reasons for self hatred.



Of course sexism is prejudice. But what is your point?

Firstly Roman, you are perpetuating a very nasty little myth.

As an ex-bouncer, and as a somewhat hyperlexic aspie, I can tell you, 90% of the women looking for a guy say "I want a good guy." and "I want a guy thats good to me", or "I want a guy that treats me right".

Here is what you dont hear "I want a nice guy." or "I want a guy thats nice to me." Especially the later. If they do say the nice, they will qualify it with the good. So even if you hear this, I want you to understand they mean "good".


Do you see the difference? Nice does not equal Good. Its an instance of women speaking literally. Its so important to them that they split hairs on the issue. In this instance, MEN, and I dont just mean we aspie men, read them wrong. We expect fuzzy meaning, but they are being literal.

You see, women ARE practical. They dont expect men to be sweet little sugar plums. They know we are going to be ill mannered at times. The mentally healthy ones(this includes aspie women!) dont want sycophantic emotional whores for men.

So it comes down to men misinterpreting what women are really saying. At times, we even substitute alternate words into our memory of what they say.

Nice guys might finish last. Good guys do not.

See, nice guys get all frustrated, decide that women like as*holes, and start acting like one. However, they soon find out that this doesnt work either. Women dont like as*holes any better than "nice" guys.

as*holes finish last. Good guys do not.

So now where do we stand? We've tried both extremes. Nice guys get love and no sex(LJBF), and as*holes get sex and no love("I'LL CALL."). It seems as though we cannot win!

But.. wait. Can you see it there? There is a spectrum.

Nice Guy ----------------------------------- as*hole

And I bet we can squeeze another type of guy in there...

Nice Guy ----------- Good Guy ----------- as*hole

See?

You want a mix of traits. Its important which ones though. Lets let some women reply here with a list of traits found in the extremes.

Well, first I have to explain something as I think there is a bit of confusion about my last post. I will try to do this in a shorter format this time. :p

I did not contradict myself, I didn't mean for it to sound that way. I think there is confusion here because when I am explaining about the 'manly men', I am trying to assume what women want, and even though it is also what I want in a sense (what I'll explain in a second) that doesn't mean that YOU by being YOURSELF has no chance. Again I am saying what perhaps the MASSES want. But YOU with AS are not the 'masses' and the masses of girls might not find you appealing, HOWEVER, no matter if you are more confident or shy, there are going to be people out there for you. They may be more rare to find, and even harder since you have AS its hard to meet people and connect with them, but THEY ARE OUT THERE so don't lost hope! I am saying you can ONLY be who you are, and somebody, somewhere, is going to just LOVE you the way you are. It may not be ALOT of women, but so be it - I don't agree in this being some sort of contest in who can date the most people in their lifetime =P

Keep in mind that often you may start OUT as friends and be so for a while. You know, you don't necessarily have to be dating right away or have 'love at first sight' (or crush at first sight or whatever). Sometimes what happens is people think the person they care about is just 'friend worthy but not boyfriend worthy'. But, they date and date people in the meantime being friends with this other person, and find something really lacking in their life. They find that maybe they are looking for the wrong type of guys, and eventually, they come to the conclusion that the right type of guy was UNDER THEIR NOSE THE WHOLE TIME! Yes! Apparantely this happens. I don't know how often, but sometimes you can know someone for a while, and not have feelings for them, and then one day, you realise that you do, but you never seen it before. And maybe you're meant to be together, who knows.

And the CONFIDENCE thing is only supposed to be temporary, isn't it? It's usually supposed to be there in the beginning, to get you dating and getting to know each other, and because its attractive (to most women, not all, once again), but, you are supposed to get to know each other the REAL you is supposed to come out, if you're gonna be honest and have a shot at something REAL, than absolutely you can show weakness and shyness, although there is really a problem with this. Because, obviously the more you get to know someone and spend time with them the more COMFORTABLE you become - you will probably be the MOST shy and scared at the beginning, not later, so this is really a catch 22 rule, its really confusing and I'm trying to understand it myself, even as far as what I want, its quite confusing.

That's why I don't like to follow rules, you'll get a headacke by the end of it! But I know... then you feel like you will never succeed at relationships as long as there ARE rules that everyone else seems to know and try to follow. But that bites...

The other question I want to ask you is, why does it have to be one or the other - niceness or confidence (manly men)? They can't both be there? Again you are saying that women think there is no middle ground, that you have to be one thing or the other, but I personally disagree. You can absolutely be both kind and confident. You can seem strong on the outside in PUBLIC, but then othertimes (in a more private setting) show bouts of sadness and doubt and weakness as you get to talk and get to know each other - particularly if you have some past painful memories that you are bringing up. I think for ME, I personally love that combination. I wouldn't WANT anyone who is so perfect and in fact so into THEMSELVES that they in fact don't need me and don't care about me at ALL except for sex? Thats gross! Relationships are supposed to be for the emotional connection - the NEED for someone in your life. And its supposed to be romantic and go BEYOND the need that friends can deliver. Friends can give you emotional support, and YES, you are free to show ALL your sides, even the weaker ones that aren't so attractive, HOWEVER, I think a romantic relationship is definitely supposed to BECOME like that eventually. If you don't fully love and trust and open up with this person, why are you together? If its just for the sex, hell, people can do that themselves.

Whether women usually have more female friends and whether that causes them to consider 'weaker' guys to be like female friends and never more, well, I don't know how that works. I'm guessing for NTs, that's usually the truth. For ME, well, I have alot more GUY friends really! I think I have more in common with guys since I'm a gamer, and just my nature, they tend to open up to me as well, so I get to know them pretty well. I have a few online friends who have flirted with me as well, and, they know all about me and alot alot of my weaknesses and know that I'm shy and sad alot, but somehow, it either doesn't bother them or its even a turn on - but again I'm FEMALE, and thats probably traits that are more acceptable in women than men. But I'm sure guys prefer confident women too, and if so, than atleast I know I am getting attention just being my shy and kind self. Ofcourse they find me attractive too, maybe that's part of it. Hmmm.... its very confusing! lol

And I'm kinda picky about guys, I'm kinda gonna get myself screwed over if I don't 'get real' about them. What I want in a guy seems a little too idealistic and not realistic, because he just seems so balanced with everything - he's manly, but he's compassionate, and he's confident but he has his shy moments, and..... man he's awesome!! ! lol. But yeah, I dont think I'm going to find someone like that anyway....

There are just some things about relationships that just can't be explained or understood..... Like you said, maybe part of it with women is playing the game, maybe not realising they are doing it, or, denying they are doing it so they don't SEEM bad. But I don't know... I don't want a guy weaker than ME or as weak as me (all the time I mean), that's all because: opposites attract, and, I want someone a least a bit manly-like, cause I'm straight, and I'm looking for someone who would compliment me well, but he absolutely has to be kind and listen to me and stuff. But I absolutely would want to see his weaknesses and feel like I could be there for him to cheer him up and help him out. It goes BOTH ways really, but men are more often supposed to be the strong, protector or something. It's just the way it is somehow. So yeah, its a tough one...

But that friendships stay forever and relationships come and go? I don't know man... I've had alot of friends give me the shaft too. And romance relationships do come and go, until you find THE RIGHT ONE, the one that lasts. But again, everyone is different and everyone has their own bad luck and good luck in their life, and for some people, their bad luck IS relationships, and they may struggle with it all their life. Where as like by comparison, my friend, she only ever dated 2 guys, and the 2nd guy she has been with for 5 straight years now, they think they are gonna get married, and she is only 22. So that just happens for some people...



Oh and I think FUZZY absolutely hit the nail on the head there! Why did I even reply? He did it for me! Lol. Yeah... You have to have the right balance. Women don't want guys who are really too sensitive and emotional and can't be there as a protector and will never be strong. We want kindness, we want to be treated RIGHT, that doesn't mean we want a stream of tears all the time or we may as well be dating women. I mean, not to be offensive there. It is ABSOLUTELY true, I think of BOTH men and women, that you have to be happy with yourself atleast a certain amount, before you are an appealing catch. A sad face won't attract someone to you, but a cheerful or content smile will. But once you are in a SERIOUS relationship, you really have to be yourself and be honest and share things.


A shorter format.... So much for THAT idea huh? >.<

But teh point is taht I am not talking about whether or not there is SOMEONE SOMEWHERE for me. As a matter of fact, I do have a girlfriend. Now, why am I complaining? Here is why. IF there were no "rules" and no "game" and it was all about emotional connection, I would have nothing to complain about, because I would simply say that I already found someone for me. However, due to teh fact that it seems like a game with rules, I feel that by "winning" with one person I haven't made an "even score" after losing so many times with other people. That is why it is so important to dissect exactly what went on in these people's brains in order to see whether indeed there were a rules or not.



Even if I do end up "in a relatinoship" after starting out as friends, won't it still be considered less "macho"? The reason I am thinking this way is that there is no other way I would make sense of what Katie did. You see, originally she didn't want me for reason X. But after she learned that X was false, she rejected me on a SOLE basis taht we have already decided to be friends. WHy is that? Because she felt that somehow I was less macho for the fact that I haven't "made it" fast enough.

Ironically, she was sending me two different messages. Her other message was precisely what you are telling me now that best relationships start out as friends. So you see, she told me two different things:

1)I can't be in a relationship with her because I haven't made it fast enough
2)We need MORE time to get to know each other and then something might happen down the road

Now part 1 and part 2 diametrically contradict each other. But I found a way to reconcile them. Here is how: she basically had two ladders. Fast ladder and slow ladder. My timing was between these two ladders. Thats why she used part 1 when she was speaking about fast ladder, and she used part 2 when speaking about slow ladder.

Now, what is the purpose of having two ladders? That seems like yet another rule. And the only way to make sense of it is to say that slow ladder is old fashioned and less prestigious than the fast one.

As always, whatever makes THE MOST SENSE is always classified as less prestigious. To me, it would make MUCH more sense to get to know someone first before jumping into relationship, yet this is a "loser" ladder. The same way, to me it makes much more sense to look for emotional connection and not for confidence; yet the world operates in just the opposite way. Perhaps it is our pop culture that all the "wise" ways of doing things are tossed out as "old fashioned" and are diametrically opposite to macho.




So this only supports my point that it is all about rules of a game. You basically told me that at the beginning of a relationship you want A, but on the long run you want B. So, what would stop you from thinking down the road from day 1, and look for B in your partner? The only thing I can think of is that you are bound by "rules of the game". The rules of the game are diametrically opposite to a wisdom of thinking on a long time scale. After all, we have already established that even though it is wiser to be friends first and take TIME to get to know each other, yet it is more macho to jump into relationship. So if teh macho way is all about living in the moment and neglecting your long time goals, then it is no wonder that the macho-based rules of the game would force you to look for A instead of B, and totally neglect your long-time goal of having B.

Let me put it differently. Suppose you have two guys. Both of them are identical down the road. However, during the first few dates, the first guy would deliberately show more confidence because he knows the rules. On the other hand the second guy who doesn't know the rules will act the same way as he does down the road. As a result, the first guy will get into long term relatioship, while the second guy doesn't. The long term relationship will last for several years. And these several years are made or broken by few days. So in other words these shallow rules of the game downgrade the importance of HUMAN LIFE.




If you don't like to follow rules, how come you want your partner to be more confident during first few dates as opposed to down the road? This is clrearly a reflection on the rules that the first few dates are "competition" and down the road is the "price". I do realize that you are much wiser than other women. I just wanted to point out to you how these rules can get so ingrained into subconscious level as a result of society's pressure that one can follow the rules without realizing it.



The fact that I can't be confident has nothing to do with being or not being nice. Rather it has to do with the fact that due to my Asperger syndrome I lack basic social skills that are required in order to act confident. The only reason I brought up niceness is that the contrast with niceness emphasizes the importance of confidence; but for me I don't see a reason for confidence on the first place.



But you see, you have implied it yourself that people are judged by the first date (after all that is the only way confidence would be the most important during that one time). Now, if I am being judged based on a short period of time, the only way it could be done is if one assumes that I am always teh same. After all, if I were everchanging, then I can have good days and bad days. So this would require a longer time in order to see all sides of me. BUt on the other hand, if I only belong to one camp or the other, then it is true that I can be judged by first impression.



Are you basically saying that the reason woman wants someone more confident is not so much about whom she is attracted to, but more about her image? That would explain your statemnet why it is okay not to be confident privitely as long as you are confident in public. In particular, this would be the case if women are judged based on their partners, which might well be true.



Once again, how can you explain the capitalized word BECOME in above quote without admitting that there are rules that need to be followed?



I would agree with you taht it is because you are a female. If you go back to my original post, I have specifically adressed the differences between the criteria men and women use for their partners.



Yah we agree here:)



So, in case of relationship opposites attract. On the other hand, in case of friendship, same-s (i.e. common interests) attract. So this proves my point that relationship is somehow opposite to friendship. And the only way it can be explained is by talking about rules of teh game.



I notice a quote "it is just the way it is somehow". So how come you are choosing your partner based on "the way it is"? Doesn't it ammount for an admission that you, too, are playing society's game?

To sum it up, we are talking abuot slightly different things. You are basically trying to point out to me that there are ways to find love DESPITE the rules. On the other hand, my point is that the fact that there ARE rules on the first place indicates an intention to exalt some men and demean others. This very INTENTION is what bothers me.