The only women my age I would be interested in

Post Reply New Topic

The reason I used the phrase "effectively asked them out" is that I was trying to make sense of why you said I am "as active as can be". Being interested without asking them out is not active. But if I have, in fact, "effectively asked them out", then yes it would be active. Thats why I theorized that you were referring to "effectively asking them out", since that would be the only way you could say I am "as active as can be".



The difference is that only the former would explain why you said I am "as active as can be".



But since you came to the conclusions that you did, then it logically means that whatever I "did" say was enough to arrive at those conclusions. Hence the examples out of the things I "did" say.

As a separate note, its not true that if I saw non-verbal clues I was giving off I would stop giving them. Here are some examples of non-verbal clues I know about yet keep giving off:

--- Loud voice

--- Monotone voice

--- Thick Russian accent

--- Messy hair

--- Unshaved beard

--- Wrinkled clothes

--- Not tucking on shirt

--- Not tieing shoes

--- Not cutting finger nails

--- Forgetting to take a shower

--- Forgetting to brush my teeth

--- Chewing with my mouth open

--- Keeping the wallet in my pocket (my mom says it bulges out and looks weird)

--- Staring at people when I am obsessing about them

--- Squinting (due to the fact that I don't wear glasses)

--- facebook posts where I reveal my Asperger (2 Russian people told me it is a bad idea)

--- facebook posts that can be construed as racist (3 American people told me it is a bad idea)

--- facebook posts that can be construed as anti-American (my third ex, an American, told me it was a bad idea)

--- Not saying hello, goodbye, please, thank you, etc

--- Interrupting people when they talk

--- Repeating myself over and over if I feel like others didn't get my point, even if I know they are tired of the subject

--- Always being quick to point out where I disagree without pointing out where I agree

--- Talking about myself too much without asking about other people

--- Oversharing things that others might regard too personal with people I barely know (in vast majority of cases it pertains to revealing my Asperger diagnosis and then asking what kinds of social mistakes am I making -- usually in conjunction with describing some failed interaction with someone else whom they don't know and/or asking them why they looked at me a certain way; although if I face any other problem I might be quick to ask for advice in that regard too: for example, I overheard a cashier, whom I don't know, saying she is diabetic and I walked up to her and asked her if she thinks I am pre-diabetic, or I walked up to that Bible study group at the very beginning of semester and instead of asking how have they been, I kept asking them as to how can I get a religious vaccine exemption)

Although with the last 5 items I don't see how they are relevant with most people who never talked to me on the first place. Yet, when I ask for feedback, people do mention them too. For example, when I asked that diabetes-cashier about my Asperger, she mentioned the pre-diabetes question as an example of how I put people off (in particular, she said that when she told me she doesn't think I am pre-diabetic I started arguing with her as to why I still might be). So then I asked her "how would people other than you know that I engage in such conversations? Is there a rumor?" She said "no its not a rumor: I haven't heard of you until you talked to me". So I then ask "if its not a rumor, and I haven't talked to most people, how do they know it?" I never got a logical answer to that question.

By the way, this question is similar to what I am trying to ask you. In your case you are saying I am "as active as can be" even though I am only obsessing in my mind without saying anything. In their case, they are saying I am focusing on myself rather than the other person even though I never had a conversation that would allow me to focus on EITHER of these two ways. So its like: are they reading my mind? If they read my mind then they would know that my thoughts are self-focused without my saying a single word and "for all intends and purposes" I have been talking about myself for too long even though I haven't. Similarly, if they are reading my mind, then they know that I am interested and "for all intends and purposes" I asked her out even though I haven't (thus making me "as active as can be" for the act of "mentally asking her out").

By the way with that cashier I was much more bold than with other women because I thought she was 60, so I wasn't attracted to her. I learned otherwise when she mentioned that she haven't gone through metapause yet (in the conversation about her glucose). So then I asked "wait a second, why would you be 60 and still not go through metapause" and then she told me she is actually 44 rather than 60, and she just aged quickly due to emotional trauma when her son was killed. She then pointed out that my telling her she was 60 is another example of how I put people off. But you see on my end I wasn't actually "choosing" to say something bold. Rather it was kind of me "assuming" she was 60 all along and then getting surprised to hear about her not having gone through metapause. So I can't really control my assumptions since, by default, they are just assumptions.



You misunderstood what I said. I never questioned whether or not I asked her out. To me it is obvious that I did. The way she came up was in the following line of thoughts:

--- How can you say I am as active as can be, if I don't ask girls out

--- Maybe you said it because I asked girl-A out

--- But my behavior with girl-A is not representative of my behavior with the rest of the girls (since girl A expressed interest and others didn't). So this still doesn't answer my question as to how you could say I am active with the rest of the girls

So I never questioned the fact that I asked girl-A out. I only questioned whether it is representative with how I act around other girls.

I do have to say though that my timing of asking her out was way off: if I was going to ask her out, I should have done so 2 months earlier. But with doing it 2 months after the fact when she has already moved on that probably just made me look weird.

And yes this does seem like a pattern. I can think of another girl -- whom I met 5 years ago in a math class at a different school (I transferred) -- who kept sitting near me in a math class and looking at me, whom I ignored. Then, two months after the semester was over (which also happened to be the last semester before I transferred), I asked her over facebook if she used to be interested in me. She blocked me.

So back to the question whether I am active or not, I guess the relevant statistics is the following:

1) The vast majority of women don't express interest. In those cases my reaction towards them ranges from not caring (on one end) or the obsessive behavior involving staring at them, angry look, obsessing whether they would talk to me, etc. But I wouldn't ask them out.

2) A small minority of women do express interest, but it is very rare, like maybe one woman a year expresses interest. In those cases, I would say with 2/3 of them I don't respond at all (but ruminate over the fact that I don't respond for years to come) while with 1/3 of them I do respond, but respond too late, at the time when they already moved on (such as that classmate I just mentioned, or A-girl, or the two cashiers whom I wish I could find).

So I guess the way I could be active is

1) With women who don't express interest, maybe my obsession over them can be construed as "effectively asking them out" if they can read me through my behavior

2) In case of small minority of women who do express interest, I can argue that "sure, I only asked out 1 woman a year, but since this is all the opportunity I had, I basically asked out every woman I ever had an opportunity to ask, so I was active in this sense"

So were you referring to "1" or "2" when you said I am "as active as can be"?



Yes I read it. I just didn't have time to respond. Thats actually why I mentioned it because I knew you responded to it so I knew you read it.

I guess the jist of what I was going to say in your response is that you are right that lying to myself adds to frustration. But at the same time I was going to ask you what other option you would suggest. So I should be truthful to myself and tell myself that they plain out don't like me. Okay. Then what? If I don't lie to myself then nobody likes me. So what am I supposed to do?

The reason I didn't write this is because I was going to elaborate on it, responding sentence by sentence, so I put it off until I have more time (particularly since semester was approaching the end and I was far behind on grading). But this is basically a jist of what I was going to say.



Again, the context of this hair-splitting is your comment that I am "as active as can be". So the question is: would my interaction with that cashier be an example of me being active? If she can deduce that I am interested in her, then you could say I "effectively asked her out", so yes, "effectively" asking her out is being active. But if she can't deduce I am interested and only knows I am angry, then no, being angry does not, by itself, consitute being active.

Now you might say that I am not active with that cashier but I was active in some other situations (such as girl-A). But the point is that cashier situation is repetitive (since actually there are multiple different cashiers acting in that exact way), while girl-A situation is a one-off (it was one specific girl and A is the first letter of her first name). Thats why I suspect that at least partly you do believe that I was "active" with those types of cashiers. Hence the question in what ways.



Being angry is not a crime. Being violent is. Since I don't want to go to jail, that is one obvious reason why being angry would not translate into being physically violent.

Although I doubt I would be physically violent even without jail being an issue. I know my mom won't call a police on me, yet I don't get violent with her either (despite the fact that I am mad at her all the time for the fact that she treats me like a little kid).



As far as angry, they don't have to read my mind to be able to tell. However, with some other things they would. For example:

a) In order to perceive me to be "as active as can be" despite my not actually asking most people out (other than rare exceptions such as girl-A) they would have to read my mind and say "QFT is interested in us so QFT has effectively asked us out, so QFT is active"

b) In order for people to say that during my conversations I talk at lenght about myself and never about them -- despite the fact that I never had any conversation with them to begin with -- they have to read my mind and "predict" what my conversation "would be"



I mean I know people see if my face is angry. But the thing is that having angry face is not as bad as actually blowing up. Or are you saying in other people's minds it "is" as bad? If so, thats quite surprising.



But then that means that NT-s aren't really good at interpretting others emotions, since they still err, just in a different direction.

Or are you saying that NT-s usually aren't quiet unless they are angry? And thats why if I am quiet for reasons other than anger they still think its anger? Since I don't start conversation unless others start it with me, are you saying they interpret it as anger every single time?



But weren't you saying that with other girls they can tell if I am obsessing over them (in fact your whole point was that I push them away by obsessing)? So why is it other girls can tell, but she can't?



Yes this seems like it



Actually she said "people in the group, me included". So judging "people in the group" as "bad people" would sound less appropriate.

Although I can see a variation of it. Maybe she thinks its "their job" to welcome me ("her job" included), so she was just doing "her part of that job". Or something like that?



Thats an interesting way to put it. So by ignoring her I actually "was doing her a favor" since I helped her to "redeem herself" without being "forced" to continue to engage in the interaction she finds stressful.



Well, the first time she "offended me inadvertly" was right before that dinner. It started off by the two of us coming before everyone else, and she was rambling about it when I couldn't follow her because she was speaking too fast and she was laughing when I couldn't see any humor. Then after that the third person arrived and she saw Lafayette University on his shirt. It turned out he went there and his mother went there too, so she kept rambling to him about it while I felt excluded because I never even heard of that university before. And then she suggested I order my food first (so that as I go to the table she can ramble to him some more about Lafayette).

Now, it wasn't the first time she offended me. But it WAS the first time I actually expressed my angler.

Here is a situation prior to that, when she offended me just as much, but I didn't express anything. So one of the people in organizer team was going to give me a ride. She said she wanted him to give her a ride too. And as the three of us was walking, she kept talking to him and totally ignoring me. Then when that organizer guy tried to ask some questions about me and also mentioned he would give me a ride, she changed her mind about needing a ride and walked away. Then I talked to HIM as to whether or not she doesn't like me and how he interprets that interaction. But I would assume he dind't pass it onto her (I mean I never asked him to be quiet, but I would just assume he was since its a polite thing to do). And yes this was few weeks BEFORE that dinner.

However, the point is that I didn't blow up at that incident with the three of us walking. I only blew up at the dinner. So then she would have only learned the concept that "she can offend me inadvertly" at that dinner, not before. So how would you explain why she was ignoring me before? Unless, of course, she reads my mind.



If I look at most of the dating advice on the internet, then yes this is precisely what it says. But here is the difference between dating advice to others, and what is being communicated to me. In case of dating advice to others, they actually say that the purpose of not thinking about it is to appear more confident/attractive so that you "can" get a date. On the other hand, in case of advice given to me, nobody says "so that eventually you can get a date". Instead they simply tell me not to think about it "just because". Do you see the difference? [/quote]

Yes, I see the difference. The difference makes no difference. If you don’t think about it – it will make you appear more confident/attractive. If this advice is accurate then how will, “Don’t think about it just because” fail to make you more confident/attractive? Let me give you an example to illustrate this in the event that it’s not clear.[/quote]

The difference is the following:

a) It reflects their opinion of me, and I care about their opinion irrespective of anything else

b) The fact that they don't think I am datable might be one reason why they are not trying to set me up with someone, among multiple other things they could have done to help me



Not in my case. No matter how bad it is to be single, going to jail is a lot worse. So I would never do anything that would risk a jail sentence, regardless of my relationship status. And dying is even worse, thats why I would never commit suicide either.



The reason I responded this way is because of the following. Why is it you suspected I would accuse you of anything? I haven't done this in the past! The only reason you would is that you seen me accusing OTHER PEOPLE in the past (such as soe of the people I mentioned in this thread) and you were worrying I would accuse you of something similar. But, if thats the case, then it is pretty logical to respond by explaining exactly what I did or didn't accused said other people.



No, because they might be hoping I would change my mind in terms of what constitutes happiness. So they might assume that

a) they can't teach me to have better social skills

but

b) they can convince me to change my mind of what constitutes happiness

So they go for b rather than a, while I wish they were to go for a instead.



Thats because others haven't spelled it out in the way you just did. I mean, when I was accusing them of thinking I should be single for the rest of my life, they could have easily corrected me by saying what you just said. But they didn't. So that seems to suggest that I was right in the way I originally interpretted them.



There is no way I would ever say anything like that. So I can only think of two possiblities:

a) Maybe like you said you confused me with someone. In which case I would be curious to find out who he is

b) Maybe you misinterpretted what I wrote. In which case I would like you to find the relevant quote so that I can explain what I actually meant

And by the way I wouldn't be talking about suicide even in a figurative sense. I just wouldn't talk about it period. So if it was a misinterpretation, it would have to be a really drastic one. Thats why I would say it is a lot more likely to be "a" than "b". Although again, people have surprised me in the past as to how ridiculously they misinterpretted the things I was saying (but never in that particular way).



I don't see how you can say "at bare minimum": there are plenty of desperate people that don't do things that are unsafe, me included.



What gave me this idea is that when I complained to one of the girls I talked to on a dating site back in 2016 about the above advice, she said that a lot of middle age single people get that advice. So I asked why is it that middle aged people get that advice but people in their 20-s don't? Is it because people assume it is too late? She wasn't very explicit in saying yes or no, but it seemed like she sort of insinuated that it might be part of it.



Again, its interesting how would they even know about my desperation? Especially if they are males? Is it something that any outside observer (male or female) can see? And is it also something that would generate rumors (so that my male professor will know it even if he never saw me at a cafe)?



The main organizer of Bible studies certainly falls into that category since during the few times when I squeezed non-evasive answer out of him, thats what he said

As far as the other organizer, I am not sure. He also acts as if I shouldn't worry about dating, but the reasons he gave doesn't seem to fall into any of the categories you listed.

For the record I have nothing against confident women & I woulda been very interested if one seemed into me. In my experience thou, confident women tend to not see me as relationship material. Whenever one was nice towards me for a bit & single, I made a move.

None of the people I talked about here were "people close to me". I was talking about people who were "nice enough to talk to me out of pity".

As far as "people close to me", I wouldn't possibly be able to cut them off no matter how much I wish I could. Case in point: right now I am on a train going to my mom's place for winter break, even though I don't really want to. Or another example: back in 2008 I didn't break up with my then-girlfriend even though I wanted to (she ended up breaking up with me herself in 2009).

So I guess if people ARE close to me, then they have that way of trapping me so that I won't walk away. I am only ignoring people that aren't really close.



Thats one thing that people were telling me and it makes no sense. Happiness is ABOUT something. Being in a relationship is a good example of something to be happy about. Otherwise, being happy on my own, makes no sense.



Not sure what you meant by that.

If you meant "purpose in LIFE" then yes I do have purpose in life: I want to be a theoretical physicist, that was my purpose since I was 9.

If you mean "purpose in a RELATIONSHIP" it seems a bit harder to tell what you mean. Because relationship is enjoyble all on its own, without any "outside" purpose. But here are some purposes I can mention:

On short term, I want to feel emotionally supported and not lonely. On a long term I want marriage and kids.



I don't know why others keep assumign I lose sense of myself. Because I don't think I ever do. I always know exactly what I want. It is those other people that set up barriers against my getting it.



That reminds me of my long term relationships in the past, when I kept remembering the good days but couldn't bring them back. But I don't see how it is relevant to my situation now. My situation now is that I can't get a relationship started, while my situation in the past was that I did get it started, it just went downhill.

Speaking of the past, I realized what I can do not to repeat past mistakes. What got it deteriorated in the past is that I started taking the other person for granted. So I should avoid doing it. But, in order to "avoid doing it" I need to have "the other person" on the first place. Right now I can't even get a girlfriend on the first place. So I am stuck.



But some people are able to marry and stay in marriage forever. I want to do the same.

Interesting. In my experience I have a much deeper emotional bond when I have more of a parental role within a relationship. Maybe some of it is because my current girlfriend is more relatable to me than my exes were. She has some physical disabilities, not the same 1s I have but she can still relate to having physical disabilities better than my exes who did not have any. Cass also has various mental & emotional issues but so do I. I had a mental breakdown when my 1st relationship fell apart & I worked on myself in various ways to overcome it some. I can use my experience to better relate to Cass & try to help her.

Okay then we are talking about different things. I also prefer women without confidence. I like shy women. But I certainly won't say I prefer the disabled ones.

Although its true that with my second ex me taking care of her because she was sick is what drew us close. But that doesn't translate into what I find attractive outside of that relationship. Although it DID teach me some compassion so that I might actually stay with a woman becuase she is sick since I don't want to hurt her (which is what happened with my second ex). But "staying because I don't want to hurt her" is very different from actually liking her.

In case of a shy woman without confidence BUT the one who is healthy, in this case yes I will actually like her better, so it is totally different from what happened with my second ex. And unfortuntely I never had a chance to date such women.

But even if I do look at my second ex, she wasn't disabled. She was sick, yes, but not disabled. She wasn't on wheel chair or anything.

But in any case, you are contradicting yourself. If you are saying you felt like you were in a similar situation as her then by definitio you weren't a "daddy figure". A "daddy figure" is someone who is in a DIFFERENT situation (a parent is in a different situation from a kid) and I don't see how such relationship can be appealing.

By the way I have no idea what your relationshp was like. So maybe you WERE a daddy figure, who knows. All I am saying is that if I just go by what you type, I see a contradiction.

Parents used to be kids themselves so me previously being in a similar situation myself is not a contradiction with being somewhat of a parental role in my current relationship. But I do think you are right about us talking about different things here.

Morning and Merry Christmas. I'll attend this post when I can, but thought 'd offer this bit now.

I said, "As active as you can be" because you live and breathe to get into a relationship. The only reason you aren't doing more to get into a relationship is because you don't know what else to do. If you are doing everything you can - everything you know how to do, and constantly asking for help finding new and improved ways to get into a relationship, continually obsessing on getting a girlfriend - that is, to me, as active as you can be. If you thought asking her out would have worked, I've no doubt you would have.

There's a thing I notice on this forum when guys discuss not being able to find a g/f that there's a heirarchy of physical or mental traits they don't want.
lack of physical attractiveness
timidness
age
ethnicity
religion
mental illness
physical disability etc

Nobody is saying you can't have preferences. I certainly had preferences when I was younger. Infact had I been more open and less picky I would have got married in my early 20s instead of 35.

But (sorry if I sound like a broken down record) the more inclusion criteria + exclusion criteria you apply to a potential female partner the more likely you will be alone for the rest of your life. Keep reminding yourself of that prospect as that is a real possibility,

I'll be alone for the rest of my life, for certain. But, back when I considered myself open to a relationship, there was one group of women on my automatic 'reject' list. I'm confident I didn't miss one opportunity worth having. I would never date 'Barbie' - or a wannabe Barbie.

Putting a reality check, girls who were "barbies" never looked at me twice. it's like saying I would never date supermodels.

Thats a good point. But then again. Lets say Person A doesn't do something because they don't care while Person B doesn't do it because they know they would fail (and they would totally do it if they thought they had any chance of success). Can you really say Person B is more active than Person A? In both cases they aren't doing anything, so their behavior is exactly the same.

One situation in which you "could" say Person B is more active is if people can somehow see through their intentions. Which of course is possible since NT can read between the lines in some situations. Thats why I keep asking if they can read between the lines here.

Here is the thing: your point was to tell me that I was a lot more active than the other poster yet it didn't work. In order to make that point, you have to assume that others actually "see" my "being active". Because it "didn't work" in a sense that I didn't get the response that I wanted. But why would I expect a response unless its something they can see? Thats why I keep asking: Can they, in fact, see it? And, if so, how?

I haven't said that her being on a wheelchair is a deal breaker. I simply don't know since I haven't been exposed to those situations to see how I would have responded.

When I talked about the women I know I wouldn't date, that was because on dating sites I get routinely contacted by women who fall into those categories, so i know what my respones to that is. But I only had 2 interactions with women in a wheelchair. So I don't really have a firm idea as to whether or not it is absolute deal breaker. I do know though that I wasn't all that excited to talk to them and it sort of felt like I was wasting my time. So I guess yes more likely than not I might decide its a deal breaker. But I don't know for sure.

I just read in your response to my other thread that you are Level 2. Is this why?

As I told you in that other thread, I am surprised you are Level 2 because nobody would ever put me on that level. Yet your social skills are obviously better than mine. How did that happen?



I know that barbie is a doll. But what group of real life women are you using that analogy for?

No, that is not the reason. The reasons are complicated but related to choice. I choose not to.



You are comparing your inside to my outside and that is not a fair comparison. I applied the same focus to learning to blend in as others apply to learning about trains, or astronomy, or IT, etc. That does not make my application of social skills easy - it makes it possible. Effectively, I learned to be a very good actor.





Here is the dictionary definition: Barbie: a conventionally attractive young woman typically perceived as lacking substance, character, or intelligence.

My particular aversion to Barbie's has to do with her developed qualities, i.e., substance, character, shallowness, etc. rather than appearance or intelligence which, while it can be nurtured, is beyond their control to a large extent.

Understood. I was not presuming to speak for you when I said that; I'm sorry if it appeared that I did. I was only speaking for myself.

I think, QFT, your specific situation is different to other young men on this forum in that you do have a somewhat long list of criteria which makes your task mission impossible.

Now that the pandemic is over get off the dating sites and open up your expectations and be open to more wider pool of girls. Meet girls in public places, clubs, associations etc. You have a curious mind, use it to make girls interested in you, Don't look for a girl to specifically share your religious, intellectual or academic background with. You still have your friends, colleagues and associates who will be there whether you have a girlfriend or not.