18 Jan 2008, 11:49 pm
We don't like jerks, we like men who like us.
Jerks are usually just more self assured, which is a manly quality.
Leaving jerks is a b*tch, as they tend to be quite assertive and do have the behind the doors 'begging' quality-a sign of sensitivity and rationale, which are manly qualitys.
Jerks also tend to be kinetic in bed-which is a great sedative to any misgivings; and doesn't neccessarily affect the fact that the woman will always leave the jerk or be seeking to leave the jerk.
So the jerk doesn't *actually* have woman; he has a shell of one--which is kind of what this thread is about.
19 Jan 2008, 12:10 am
19 Jan 2008, 12:13 am
Really? You guys don't know that?
I guess that makes everything like 100x more difficult then 
I don't really feel negotiated. I just read a lot of philosophy( By the way, Schopenhauer would disagree with you. He would say the will to life (which includes breeding) controls all people, however subconsciously.), and finally figured out this -
No matter what men tell themselves, in the end they want to find someone special, or a one night stand. They want some sort of relationship - and each guy wants something different in it. They don't want to be friends, aquintances, buddies. If a guy does want to be your friend, its because you are both honestly not attracted to each other. As Nietzsche put it "
A woman may very well form a friendship with a man, but for this to endure, it must be assisted by a little physical antipathy. "
Now the real question I ask myself is -
What the hell do I want in a relationship?
I think THATS the tougher question.
19 Jan 2008, 12:34 am
Heh heh,
Why would we know that?
We only know that at some point in time we get really creeped out by what appears to be behaviors that indicate an assumption is present without the standing to have them.
The standing comes from a man being male and a woman being female. As far as breeder theory goes.
I do love the humour of a boy who has been taught by mommy that he can get any girl he wants. Mommy's can be so evil in the quest to make their boys feel good about their future.
*I've found with observation that these type of men generally spend much of their time watching 'porn' (which is) acting and not indicative of the real world, but of the profit going cha-ching in the producers wallet and the watchers ultimate loniless, as well as unattractiveness. Ugly is of what is going on in the soul. People and their physical standards. I can about tell who spent the night on the telly/tv, and how much they drank while doing so, what 'type' they've been watching, and what hopes/false realities they've concocted for their future, by what they say and how they say it*
But this takes place over time. There is no 'me guy you girl'.
So what happens when a man's fantasy life keeps him going but never fills him
He watches the other 20% happy and healthy and companioned, and asks, what am I doing wrong---from not the happy, healthy, companioned man, 
but from the group that most closely resembles himself; continuing the cycle, until he can take it no more: if he's smart and serious about really wanting someone to love him.
Some figure it out sooner than others.
Some are most happy getting bred without tie downs.
I got to look out for myself, yo. And this whole male evolution thing-totally unattractive.
How couldn't it be? (I mean, do you see alot of women on here hollering, "I want to date a breeder theorists, you know, just some guy wanting just some girl"). I wonder if this says anything about asperger women in general.
No. There is always whining and crying. "I can't get a date, why aren't there any women on here, why are aspi girls standoffish, what's their problem..."
Here's a clue:
I don't know any non social person who is willingly going to subject their serenity to a whiner, a cryer, and an insincere by nature individual. Its a known waste of time *in advance*. It's creepy. And I feel for you, I really do, just in a very distant, very not involved, very safe place.
But it bothers me enough to speak. I for one am not a pity dater. I've pity dated. You've pity dated one, you've pity dated them all.
Who cares that you are lonely? Not the strange female who isn't looking forward to miserable. You've got to build yourself up. When you don't need a girl, you'll likely have one come your way. Maybe that does fall into jerk theory, though I'd say modified.
Keep working at it. Bensons advice is good. Go somewhere where someone who might be looking for someone might be. But don't forget, a group meeting or church or whatever is not by standing a 'dating zone' and you might come face to face with what you did by IM-rejection.
I know I'd reject some literal stranger approaching me, for ultimately sex (that's what it is-mask it in 'relationship if you please', at somewhere I needed to be for self help. *Unless there was instant and ongoing chemistry; which is rare, I will tell you. And even then, then you come to the specifics of who each other are and what about them either is or is not what you are about.
not meant to offend.
and edited for clarity.
Last edited by SeaBright on 19 Jan 2008, 1:09 am, edited 1 time in total.
19 Jan 2008, 12:38 am
And where did you get this from? You act like people aren't machines, if you want to be very biologically inclined. I don't know. I'm not with the Existentialists who say we're totally free; we're probably not. But, I think we have enough variance to give significance to the stance that maybe we're different enough that it seems that we are.
I could say from observation many more horrible things about women.
Last edited by Kalister1 on 19 Jan 2008, 1:36 am, edited 6 times in total.
19 Jan 2008, 12:56 am
19 Jan 2008, 12:58 am
I'm not trying to recover what mess our contact turned into. It's been well over half a month since I've last heard from her. I'm just trying to prove a [pessimistic] point here, that aspies aren't different from 'regular' folks.
Im just saying, you probably wanted a relationship with her, of some sort. I dont think I came off as bashing. I don't see how its so hard to accept that there is a Darwinian explanation for everything. I think she is just trying to deny that its not obvious that you wanted to ask her out on a date eventually. I mean, COME ON.. please.. oh really?
Im with Schopenhauer on this one - We all have a subconscious drive, a will, to breed.
Yeah
Sucks man.
Last edited by Kalister1 on 19 Jan 2008, 1:36 am, edited 1 time in total.
19 Jan 2008, 1:18 am
Is it:
I initiated conversation with a stranger who was cute and because she lived near me. When I got around to asking her out, she said no.
Except for the fact that we exchanged a few more emails and talked over IM, bingo.
Or:
I was browsing.
(and noticed a cute girl)
(who lives nearby)
So I......initiated communication.
I was hoping
For what? Hoping is not the same thing as sharing/speaking/communicating. It is abstract and hidden. It seems like you were hoping for something but never actually shared/cleared that with her *in advance* of asking her for a personal meeting. Was she hoping for the what that you were hoping for-or something else? How do you know? I mean, what is your rationale, exactly for saying "just goes to show you"?
Were you honestly upfront about your hoping being a 'meetup' *in advance*? If not, you have jumped into the water and are curious why you are wet, my friend. As well, things do change. You said yourself-total strangers. To be offended that some lady you know nothing about does not want to risk unknowns by jumping into something so personal as meeting whoever you are-seems odd.
Were you honest?
I think not. Here is why:
You said,
"She spoke to me-I was so surprised." (Why? Why? Why? Why were you surprised?)
The problem of your disappointment likely is in your self answer to the above question.
I think you decided to ask her out becasue she spoke to you, and because she lives nearby, and because she is really cute. You thought you should meet for real, but she didn't respond to that the way you had hoped.
Again, was she hoping for what you were hoping for? Again, what you've left out is that it was you who were dishonest.
I can't really figure that out, since we're not psychic here and we haven't spoken in person. What I can say is that we had a nice conversation and if it hadn't been that way I wouldn't have asked her in the first. I'm not needy.
Unless of course that is not the case and you've left out that you were totally upfront about the reason for your initial communication as being- your looking for a date with that person because she is really cute and lives near you.
I surmise that your heartbreak comes from the following:
SHE answered the very nice mail you sent with a very nice mail of her own-
What does that say? That she is polite. That she loves her WP family. That she was curious why you were mailing. It really could be anything.
Please think to be more careful with the people who you impose yourself on. You don't know anything about her, but here you are.
Like you are not the 14,000th. Your introduction very well might have been that last thing on earth she wanted to hear. And maybe she is still in the process of learning that being contacted by a male is not for friendship as the end result is *almost* always the same.
What responding to an email or chatting IM doesn't say:
It doesn't say I love you stranger, let's meet.
A pretty face, a public photo, or a statement of location on a family site of strangers doesn't say I love you, let's meet. Though it might say, here is my face-be it what it is- here is my plot in the world.
I *could be* totally off.
Maybe after talking to you for awhile she became aware that you wern't her type-as you are strangers and talking is one indicator as to a persons disposition.
And why do you judge a person on whether or not they want to date anyway?
Is it because you want to date.
Sounds like a personal problem.
You may have taken a stranger.
You may have phantasized a wanted outcome to your benifit
You may have put her on a pedastal,
And you may have used the reality of the situation, and the dashing of your maybe fantasy, to slam her and all women for putting an end to the IT you finally revealed.
Your response is pretty unintelligible, but I'll try to sort it out.
I didn't make a blanket statement. I didn't even make a derogatory statement towards women. I said "some" people. You've misconstrued what I've said.
If things had reached the same conclusion but she had sent an email saying something like "sorry thanks but I'm not interested" it would have been different. But basically flaking out and not saying anything was kind of rude. If it had happened to you, you would agree. I realize that women ask men out less often then men do, but this situation happens to both of us, so there's nothing sexist about what I've said.
JoeNapo
Yellow-bellied Woodpecker
Joined: 16 Jan 2008
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 70
Location: Orange County, SoCal
19 Jan 2008, 1:22 am
19 Jan 2008, 1:27 am
What she is trying to get at is that girls want an interesting, non-needy, ambitious guy.
Breeder theorist 
Its perfectly plausible that it has a Darwinian explanation, in fact, it does! But, he was NEVER trying to cover up anything, and thats what Im getting at. If you don't want us to be "in the dark", I won't let you be either. It was just really condescending the way you first put it. I don't think anyone ever said girls don't like "jerks" (I hate that term), and that you have to have something to give (Yeah.. yeah..) but you have to realize guys are pretty simple minded. Its true.
Well, I bet you know that already. So whatever.
Also, a guy doesn't just want "some girl". If he isn't talking to you, he doesn't like you. Thats how they select their mates. They don't even talk to the ones they don't want. Pretty simple. They are selective, believe it or not, they just don't lead on people, so its not obvious.
And another nice guy goes down the drain...
Oh yeah. And women don't do "Thanks but no thanks". They just flake. Uhh..
Don't get bitter 
19 Jan 2008, 2:25 am
Oprah, of course
I think we are all different.
But for the biological nature of the machine. People aren't machines and they are definately machines. In the case of people being machines, what is the programming and who is it compatible with and who is recieving what programming commands? If a guys programming is 'breed with fertile woman' and a girls programming is 'select for viability' than wouldn't it make sense that the female sees and rules out characteristics she would not like to see repeated in another generation? And that a male would continue the command to breed? Sure.
Machines are programmable for purpose, and once programmed their purpose is set. They can be cut up, reconfigured, and reprogrammed-or used for spare parts. Depending on the nature of their components. They can be taken and maintenienced and fussed about, becoming well worn or pristine antiques and classics. They can be misused and left to rust. Traded in. In all of this is choice.
Yet I still believe within our differences we group or identify with main themes of programming. Would that make me existentialist? I don't know.
Though I'll never understand all that Existentialist sociology talk.
Please, I'm mid 30s with a baby face. I get all the psychos. I've earned the right to sound at least a bit annoyed. I'll try to not sound condencending.
You could if you've been pursuing many with no substancial interest beyond biological satation and your selection has been in conflict with your purpose.
No, as I understood it, a slut was a woman (or man) who was unselective and promiscuous. Nowadays, if he gets her she is, if he doesn't (but he's built up a large base of bragging amoungst friends) she is. ... especially, from the few who actually believe all that garbage AND sham themselves by making the attempt
So smart, so sophisticated.It's not. But like the movement of dissonance against this thing termed 'woman', so too must one expect the balance of voices. Don't you call me sophisticated. You don't know me.
I liked you better as the near co-conspirator (depending on outcome; check your local jurisdiction).
I'm surprised you have been so livid and thoughtful consistantly since then
My profile of you *would be* that you are likely facially pretty unattractive as popular standards go, yet have no problem obtaining a woman for your bed, as your paticualar individual sense of self coupled with the way your thoughts reacted to what your eyes have seen, makes your face quite attractive, at least to someone, overriding the popular programming-of what is/has been designated as physical male attractiveness.
Unless....you are a woman!
(former post edited)
but we are off topic!
and how rude~this is about those asperger girls and how it just seems they lead a guy on, isn't it.
19 Jan 2008, 3:32 am
I can't really figure that out, since we're not psychic here and we haven't spoken in person. What I can say is that we had a nice conversation and if it hadn't been that way I wouldn't have asked her in the first. I'm not needy.
'talked' or typed? Big difference.
Well if you had such a nice conversation why would you say, "I guess I thought some of the people on this forum had a different mentality when it comes to honest communication, but I guess I was wrong. A big letdown, if you ask me."
I don't recall indicating that you made a blanket statement; and I don't recall stating that you made a derotgatory statement towards women. The object of your writing did indicate a particular person. The title of your writing did indicate an appeal to others to rally support.
I still haven't seen any indication that you have considered her point of view.
I did get baited into a sidetrack conversation by another member, and I'm sorry if you thought some of that was meant towards your situation. I'm not convinced that I've misconstrued what you meant by your post, either. I think your feelings were hurt, you didn't think things through with this woman you were typing to, and you lashed out in response to your confusion as to why she would do that to you. But if I did misconstrue and you wish her all the best though are a little lost as to what happened for her to drop contact, then I appologize.
If things had reached the same conclusion but she had sent an email saying something like "sorry thanks but I'm not interested" it would have been different. But basically flaking out and not saying anything was kind of rude.
It was kinda rude. Really strange for someone who was chatting along happily. Did you say or do anything to frighten her away?
You had your experience and she had hers. But you don't know what hers is! Instead you've concluded from your end of the context. I'm only asking you to consider/hypothesize what her experience then or right now *might be/might have been* as that is the unknown and you already are aware of yours. For all you know someone at that moment died in her family. You just don't know. How can you conclude without stating an exception? Her not responding does seem a bit rude, then again, her experience is unknown.
What if her computer crashed. If she had no guilt, well let me ask you this, if something explainable happened in her life and she came and read this-how do you imagine she would feel about you then, having practically identified her. There are likely only so many asperger females with a photo AND a san fran locale. Easily found by tracing your recent posts. Maybe you threw her something she wasn't sure how to think about at the time. And she is/was processing the time thinking about how she feels about it.
No I wouldn't and haven't. Perhaps I went off on a sexist rant. And I appologize, though I mean every word. It doesn't happen to both of us. It happens to you. My only question is why did it happen to you. I thought it was the same as yours. Sorry if I was mistaken
Better luck next time, and don't let the last experience spoil the next!
19 Jan 2008, 3:57 am
19 Jan 2008, 4:39 am
Ambition is a flight risk.
Its perfectly plausible that it has a Darwinian explanation, in fact, it does!How do you know that?
If he says he was in vocal communication with her, I will buy that. Otherwise, although he may not have been trying to be deceptive to prove the innocence of his stance, the effect was recieved the same on this end. Only because of the seeming absence of disclosure, as well as odd wording that seemed to indicate one thing and leave out others. Such as, He emailed, she spoke, everything was great until. What did their conversations look like.
hi. hey : lol 
do you like sushi ? They never spoke in person. Did they speak?be my candle
Are your saying the way I second put it (which it?) was better?
I'm tired.
A suppose a term needs to be defined here:
noun
1. a dull stupid fatuous person
, "tedious and ineffectual person," Amer.Eng. carnival slang, perhaps from jerkwater town (1878), where a steam locomotive crew had to take on boiler water from a trough or a creek because there was no water tank. This led 1890s to an adj. use of jerk as "inferior, insignificant."
2. fat·u·ous
–adjective 1. foolish or inane, esp. in an unconscious, complacent manner; silly.
unreal; illusory.
'dictionary.com'
*loud, abnoxious, insulting
but you have to realize guys are pretty simple minded. Its true.
No, I maintain they are quite complex, but easily complexed, thereby preferring to shelter beneath the umbrella of simple mindedness.
[/end]
Definately something I'd like to wrestle you on.
And another nice guy goes down the drain...
Don't get bitter
Sure they do. Sometimes it's not called for.
19 Jan 2008, 7:43 am
After reading this, I'd have to say she made the right choice.
Oh and kill her for not going out with you? Sorry but there is no rule stating that someone MUST go out with you.
19 Jan 2008, 3:30 pm
| Similar Topics | |
|---|---|
| Talk Show host Wendy Williams is in very bad shape |
27 Nov 2024, 5:14 pm |
| My people! |
18 Sep 2024, 10:06 pm |
| Hi people |
18 Sep 2024, 10:08 pm |
| Hello, people from the Internet! |
12 Oct 2024, 9:56 am |
