Using girlfriends as doormats

Post Reply New Topic

You've killed nothing. What you need to kill is your inability to understand the problem. When the problem stops happening, people will stop bringing it up.

Because I couldn't be bothered to look up information on a film I don't know what im on about ha ha

Like I said I'll go on what I know, and until I came here I hadn't even heard of a "friendzone" and if I ask my friends im sure they're not likely to have a clue as to what a "friendzone" either.

If it make you feel better to call it a "friendzone" then you crack on ^_^

Women not sleeping with people who want them to is not a problem.
"The way I see this whole phenomena is some guys basically turn into Gollum when they meet a woman, and mistake her vagina for the One Ring. "We wants it, we needs it. Must have the precious. They stole it from us. Sneaky little womenses. Wicked, tricksy, false!" They'll hang around sort of like a sycophant, seething underneath at being denied, yet playing at being a friend in the hope that someday, they'll be able to seize their moment." - Edgewaters
borrowing some language there because it's so true.
That is friendzoning
manipulation is different.
Does manipulation happen in human relationships? yes
It the language of "friendzoning" tied up in some really wrongheaded ideas about gender and sex to the point where it doesn't accurately represent the fairly neutral concept you describe yes.
The issue isn't us not understanding what you're talking about, the issues is you refusing to let go of problematic wording that has more implications than what you actually mean.

Also,DogOfJudah that was awesome.

Why would I let go of an Accepted name for the problem?

I'm sticking by what I said, neither of you know what you are talking about. Neither of you will ever convince me that I'm incorrect in this.

It wasn't awesome, he was expressing ignorance.

yes, that was an excellent analysis.


ohhhh yes, it's one that i learned on here too. been dating since i was a teenager yet it was unknown to me until i came here. also "emotional tampon", "assholery", and "alpha male" (in the context of dating)

Just had a scary thought when I saw the name of this thread again. Literally using girlfriends as doormats...

Umm, because it's not an Accurate (if we're randomly capitalizing) descriptor, and it confuses people when you say things that aren't what you mean. Because you want to be taken seriously and "friendzoning" is a wahh she won't sleep with me joke.

Good to know, your opinion is on record, if it's not up for discussion, no need to ever mention it again.

I thought it was awesome, you don't get to decide whether or not I liked something.

Some people's only taste is in their mouths.

very adult, brava

Yes, stating exactly the same thing you just said, that I don't get to decide whether you liked something or not, is clearly childish. I was simply agreeing with you. I have no control over what other people consider good or not. That doesn't mean however that I have to accept what you like. After all, some people consider 'Jackass' to be quality entertainment..

I don't always like the LJBF scenarios. Actually, I don't really think I was treated like a doormat so much. I probably felt more ignored than anything. It would be hard to tell the difference between where the attachments felt for women would be coming from. If they would be treating me like a doormat, then I would just walk away and not look back. I also probably would give them the cold shoulder treatment and just not talk to them at all with no reason in their minds.

I would prefer a woman who has a kinder heart. In the past, I've fallen for tomboys, shy girls, nerds, girls with strong personalities, and girls who are also Aspies. However, I also don't wish to go too far and be considered a stalker. So, I try to stay with the LJBF scenario until the time is right and she hasn't fallen for someone else.

What happened was that in May 2005 she first met Mr. X. They didn't exactly start a relationship only a couple of dates. But still in some way he conveyed to her he was interested and thats why she felt like he cheated on her when he went out with others. After that, however, he apologized and said he was still interested. As a result she was torn between trying to pursue him or trying to see others. So she signed up for dating site.

Then, when she signed up for dating site, she met me. That happened right after I have, myself, been dumped by Anne so I was depressed. I kept going on and on about my Asperger, how I can never get anyone to like me, and how lonely and miserable I was (that is the part which I am referring to when I say I was "using her as doormat"). That was also the time when I told her my ex is overweight (I don't remember actually telling her; but perhaps I said it in the context of talking about my overall dating experience) After I kept doing it for an hour or so, she told me I can't be happy with others unless I am happy with myself and LJBF-ed me (so thats what I meant when I was saying how "man" using "woman" as doormant leads to LJBF). Since in May 2005 I was upset myself I accepted LJBF.

Then in Summer 2005 she tried to talk to me to get an emotional support regarding her situation with Mr.X (thats the part where "woman" was using "man" as doormat, which I didn't mind by the way). I was not very responsive since, after her LJBF, I was spending my energies on chatting with other girls online -- none of which was successful either.

Then in September 2005 I was going on a date with Ms. X. (not to be confused with Anne). That was one single date that went bad and I never saw ms X again afterwords. But it happened that I mentioned to Katie about planing to date Ms. X, but I never mentioned to her what happened after the date (I wasn't keeping anything from Katie; I was simply talking to her very sporadically so I simply never had a chance to mention the latter). Thats why in November she still thought I was with Ms X and I clarified the situation that I wasn't.

Yes Katie was hang up on Mr X throughout Summer 2005, but I didn't gather that she was hang up on him in November 2005, especially since her first email sounded quite neutral regarding Mr. X. Nevertheless, when I followed up with her in 2006 it turned out that she ended up being in long term relatinoship with Mr X. But I guess it is hard to tell whether she was onto him the entire time or whether in Nov 2005 she decided to move on but later, in 2006, came back to him.

Anyway, the timing of the conversation shown on the other link was November 2005. And the main question is how come in November 2005 she can't go back on the decisions made in May, given that I explained to her how the situation changed since then. The fact that she is not willing to go back on her earlier decision is an indication that she believes in the concept of Friends Zone.



What do you mean "nothing good can come from asking this"? I mean obviously sometimes good DOES come from asking ppl out.



You know, there is a set of puzzles that are impossible to solve in two dimensions but which would solve very easily if only it will cross your mind to do them in three dimensions. This is, indeed, the source of Katie's confusion. Just like you might automatically assume "there is no such thing as third dimension", Katie assumes "there is no such thing as changing one's mind on the previously made decision". That is why she is confused. In fact she tries very hard to understand where I am coming from: she speculates that perhaps she wasn't clear enough back in May and I didn't understand her that she only wants to be friends (which she apologizes for); but it would never ever cross her mind that perhaps I understood her in May just fine and I am asking her about changing her mind. Now, the reason the latter doesn't even occur to her is that she is too used to the "dating game" in which once you are in "Friends Zone" you are not allowed to get out. Thats why the "unspoken rules" Katie keeps assuming in that exchange are, indeed, a proof that the concept of Friends Zone does exist, at least in her mind.



Basically what I was telling her "back in May 2005 I was looking for sympathy so I wanted to be friends; but now that it is November, whatever applies to May doesn't apply any more; so why can't we, now, in November, disregard the above and start dating"



Actually I haven't sensed the anger in her emails. In fact she seemed to be quite patient.



She was, indeed, asking for help in Summer 2005, but none of it was pasted in that post. As far as conversation in November 2005 (the one you were reading) I don't see where she was asking for help. Saying one is busy is simply a polite way of saying "no", not necesserely asking for help. I mean, when I was trying to ask physics professors to be my research supervisors and they said they were busy, they weren't asking my help with their business, they were just saying no. In dating its the same thing.



I mean in my interpretation her "cry for help" was in summer, and NOT in that email so yes in fact I missed it. And also I have, indeed, took it as a polite rejection.



She never stated that the 4 page mail was the reason for "sealing the deal". On the contrary, she was saying that her mind was made up when we first met and she was apologizing for not having made it clear before (which by the way she DID tell me back in May but she was probably assuming I forgot which I haven't -- I simply was hoping "the deal" can change as time goes on). Now, yes, IF someone's mind were made up due to these 4 emails I won't be surprised at all (I mean they were quite rude); but that is NOT what she said, you are only attributing it to her. Basically, if you go by what she SAYS, my behavior in November didn't contribute to her decision at all; her mind was made up in May, and as far as November is concerned it was all about "since you were put in Friends Zone in May, you stay in Friends Zone".



It wasn't "how else" I went wrong; rather it was her "Initial" reason for rejection.



But you see, I only said "my ex was overweight" I didn't say "my ex was overweight and thats what I don't like". So she has to psychoanalyze me in order to put that second part into my mouth. From Freudian point of view, if I don't care about someone's weight it would never cross my mind to mention it and if I mention it I must care. But what if Freud is wrong? What if I mention things just randomly even when I don't care -- just like I can mention the weather even if I couldn't care less? Now I realize that "mentioning weight randomly" is not the same as "mentioning weather randomly" because the former can hurt people while the latter can not. But in this case the issue has NOTHING to do with my judging people but A LOT MORE to do with my NOT REALIZING saying something can hurt them. The latter amounts to "being naive" which is in many ways the opposite of judgemental (well obviously not the exact opposite, but you get the point: usually ppl who are naive tend to judge others a lot less).

Now, if you read what she was saying in her final email, she said SHE was immature for judging ME, she never said I was immature for judging her! In other words, she understood that I was "naive" and for that I was the "victim" of HER "judgement" (I mean, that is exactly what she was apologizing for in her last email!) Now, if thats the case, why didn't she change her mind and decided to be with me? Well, all her appologies were past tense. In other words, there was "unwritten rule" that whatever was decided back in May 2005 stays. Thus, she was apologizing for "having been immature" back in May, but she didn't even feel a need to mention November since she thought that we both know that "there is no way of undoing May". Now, why is it "there is no way of undoing May"? Because of Friends Zone concept. In May she put me on Friends Zone, so that part is sealed. Thus, getting out of friends zone is not even part of discussion -- the latter is not allowed. She is simply apologizing for putting me there in the first place.



I am not sure what you mean by saying Asperger was a bomb; if by that you mean "a complete surprise", it was not. I mean she knew about my Asperger since May. In fact, the main topic of the conversation BACK IN MAY was how due to Asperger everyone rejects me -- which is what originally lead to her LJBF-ing me with the line "you can't be happy with others if you are not happy with yourself".



Actually my intention was NOT to blame her but rather to redeem myself. Now, UNFORTUNATELY, the logic demands that "if its not my fault it is her fault". But that is now how I meant it. I only meant to emphasize "it is not my fault" part and thus imply I shouldn't be rejected for it.



I think you misread the pronouns in her email. She was saying SHE was shallow; she never once called me such. And that is precisely the point. If SHE believes it was HER who was shallow, why not "undo" her "shallow" decision and be with me? Apparently it is because the rules of the dating game don't allow her to get me out of friends zone. So, no matter how "shallow" she was while putting me in there, the "rules" tell her I have to stay there.



In that last email she still wanted to be my friend, nothing changed in that regard.



When did you see her giving me "chance to be more"? As I have shown in the analysis in that post, whenever she mentioned "chance to be more" she was ONLY being polite because I pushed her to. In reality, her mind was made up back in May that there would be nothing more, and she was assuming that "sticking by the decision made in May" is a given.



My desire to be in relationships has nothing to do with lust. In fact, as a Christian, I don't believe in sex before marriage. Rather, I want to be in relationships to gain social status. And that is precisely why I don't like being "just friends" since the latter implies low status.



At least in Katie's case it was real. Look at these:

1) She was assuming I forgot the LJBF conversation back in May. Why? Because she assumes that if I was LJBF-ed in May I can not change my status in November. So she would never even consider that I was asking for change of status; she simply decided I forgot.

2) She was apologizing for her behavior back in May but never addressed the question why can't her decision change. Again, she assumes "unwritten rule" that the decision, once made, can never change.

3) She was calling HERSELF shallow and not me. Yet she still didn't want to date me. Again, because of the "unwritten rule" that she is not allowed to change her mind -- even if she was "shallow" back at the time when she was making up her mind.

So you see how her behavior reflects the concept of friends zone. That is precisely what bothers me about her: why is she following that concept so strictly?




Again, this assumes that the girl will use Freud and say "since I bothered mentioning something it means I care about it". But why use Freud to judge my motives instead of simply ASKING ME? This is precisely why aspies suffer. NT-s say "if an aspie didn't do (INSERT SOCIAL CONVENTION) it means they feel (INSERT SOMETHING NEGATIVE)". Well its not true! Aspies didn't feel the said negative thing. So why not just ask them and trust them for what they say?

Last edited by Roman on 11 May 2012, 3:49 am, edited 1 time in total.

Could be scarier... How about doormats as girlfriends?

Okay guys.
WARNING WARNING WARNING
=====================================================
Long / verbose entry quoting Roman, DogofJudah and adding my own parts in bold..
If I overstep the lines, please feel free to report the post. But after sitting and reading the topic as it began..I have to say if Roman did any more digging he'd hit China, and be forced to dig his way back. I'm hoping some of my advice or analysis of the turn of events (a whole 7 years ago that are still being obsessed about today?!) will reign in a reality check. I unfortunately used to be this way as well, and it really pains me to see others be like this. Another thing is sometimes, we are wrong. We are not perfect, we are human. Defending against everything that doesn't validate what someone has done doesn't make the actions more valid, and it defeats the point of seeking advice or discussing the topic. With that out the way...let's continue.
=====================================================
Then, when she signed up for dating site, she met me. That happened right after I have, myself, been dumped by Anne so I was depressed. I kept going on and on about my Asperger, how I can never get anyone to like me, and how lonely and miserable I was (that is the part which I am referring to when I say I was "using her as doormat"). That was also the time when I told her my ex is overweight (I don't remember actually telling her; but perhaps I said it in the context of talking about my overall dating experience) After I kept doing it for an hour or so, she told me I can't be happy with others unless I am happy with myself and LJBF-ed me (so thats what I meant when I was saying how "man" using "woman" as doormant leads to LJBF). Since in May 2005 I was upset myself I accepted LJBF.

Woah woah woah. Very good cause for LJBF here. I wouldn't have even challenged it as much as it hurt. Glad you accepted LJBF at this point.

Then in Summer 2005 she tried to talk to me to get an emotional support regarding her situation with Mr.X (thats the part where "woman" was using "man" as doormat, which I didn't mind by the way). I was not very responsive since, after her LJBF, I was spending my energies on chatting with other girls online -- none of which was successful either.

And that's fine, you're not on a dating site to be an Agony Uncle, after all.

Yes Katie was hang up on Mr X throughout Summer 2005, but I didn't gather that she was hang up on him in November 2005, especially since her first email sounded quite neutral regarding Mr. X. Nevertheless, when I followed up with her in 2006 it turned out that she ended up being in long term relatinoship with Mr X. But I guess it is hard to tell whether she was onto him the entire time or whether in Nov 2005 she decided to move on but later, in 2006, came back to him.

That's referred to as "Dating, but nothing serious." or "Casual Dating" according to Plenty of Fish. She liked dating him, would probably have become more serious given the chance with this Mr. X but I'm guessing Mr. X has plenty of options and she was still hoping.

Anyway, the timing of the conversation shown on the other link was November 2005. And the main question is how come in November 2005 she can't go back on the decisions made in May, given that I explained to her how the situation changed since then. The fact that she is not willing to go back on her earlier decision is an indication that she believes in the concept of Friends Zone.

Reality sinking in it's probably based off your first encounter. As much as you have become a better person now, the first few times you spoke she got to see just how ugly things can get with you and a question which is fair to ask (us guys ask similar stuff, too) is "if this was how things went down first time will they always be this way?" "can I really deal with a person that can be like this? do i really HAVE to?" "will he shoot me down to other girls, and make me out to be bad the moment he gets tired of me?" and so forth. She couldn't be more than a friend to you in her eyes.

What do you mean "nothing good can come from asking this"? I mean obviously sometimes good DOES come from asking ppl out.

While that is true..she made it clear who she was interested in and it wasn't you. You know this as well, spin Dog's advice how you will on that one but deep inside you know she doesn't like you that way and this is you trying to deal with the rejection in the way you know how - by trying / waiting again 'til she says yes. Don't think that makes for good friend material, personally, and I'm sure she doesn't either.

You know, there is a set of puzzles that are impossible to solve in two dimensions but which would solve very easily if only it will cross your mind to do them in three dimensions. This is, indeed, the source of Katie's confusion. *snip*

Okay, *snip means I'm quoting the entire paragraph but it's a bunch of babble so I kept the import bit. This puzzle is very 1 dimensional, and simple. She likes Mr. X that way, she doesn't like you that way. You can try and make odd conclusions to the events that transpired to convince yourself otherwise but it isn't very healthy, and I suggest you stop and think about how you can be a better friend to this person or just leave the friendship alone if you aren't capable of doing this and move onto other women.

Basically what I was telling her "back in May 2005 I was looking for sympathy so I wanted to be friends; but now that it is November, whatever applies to May doesn't apply any more; so why can't we, now, in November, disregard the above and start dating"

Are you seriously suggesting you have some sort of entitlement to date a girl against their will? Are you also suggesting your initial reason to join a dating site magically vaporised moments before you got "demoted" to the friend zone? And yes, Judah hit the nail on the head. Your attempts to convince K of whatever it is you are trying to say comes across as phony and desperate.

Actually I haven't sensed the anger in her emails. In fact she seemed to be quite patient.

The fact that she has to even be so patient with a man she barely knows on the Internet is a bad sign in itself. I'd leave her alone. Abort mission! Man the life boats! Call the wambulance!

She was, indeed, asking for help in Summer 2005, but none of it was pasted in that post.

That's right, as a friend, for the guy she liked (which wasn't you).

I mean in my interpretation her "cry for help" was in summer, and NOT in that email so yes in fact I missed it. And also I have, indeed, took it as a polite rejection.

It's a positive step in the right direction.

She never stated that the 4 page mail was the reason for "sealing the deal".

As an aspie I can tell you it took me many years to realise not everything HAS to be told to you for it to be the case. If your initial contact didn't "seal the deal" I'm sure 4 pages of venting, contradicting messages and attempts to win this girl that isn't interested in you "back", will have most definitely sealed it.

On the contrary, she was saying that her mind was made up when we first met and she was apologizing for not having made it clear before (which by the way she DID tell me back in May but she was probably assuming I forgot which I haven't -- I simply was hoping "the deal" can change as time goes on).

If a mind is made up, and you acknowledge that, how can you expect it to change? Why would you want it to if it was made up and you agreed to it? That shows lack of respect for someone's feelings or opinions. You don't respect her right to just be friends with you. The hole is getting deeper I'm afraid, Roman.

Now, yes, IF someone's mind were made up due to these 4 emails I won't be surprised at all (I mean they were quite rude); but that is NOT what she said, you are only attributing it to her.

It's a pretty safe to attribute this to K and others in the same predicament. Having been on the receiving end of something like this before it's pretty darn messed up, dude. Accept it. It's messed up.

Basically, if you go by what she SAYS, my behavior in November didn't contribute to her decision at all; her mind was made up in May, and as far as November is concerned it was all about "since you were put in Friends Zone in May, you stay in Friends Zone".

So by simply wanting to counter Dog by reaffirming an earlier statement in your post, you have countered your own argument in the process. The girl's mind is made up.

It wasn't "how else" I went wrong; rather it was her "Initial" reason for rejection.

No, it's how you went wrong. But I do think Initial reason for rejection has a nice ring to it. I'll use that one for myself in the future.

But you see, I only said "my ex was overweight"

Yes, you only shot down 1 ex or woman to your romantic interest to indicate she is a better choice. Bravo. Oh, wait..

I didn't say "my ex was overweight and thats what I don't like".

But you might as well have. It's the tone, the wording, and how you used this information to further the bond between you and K.

So she has to psychoanalyze me in order to put that second part into my mouth.

Not really, I only took 1 look at this sentence as I'm writing this and came to that conclusion very quickly. It wouldn't surprise me if others felt this way (or perhaps I'm speaking out of turn).

From Freudian point of view, if I don't care about someone's weight it would never cross my mind to mention it and if I mention it I must care. But what if Freud is wrong? What if I mention things just randomly even when I don't care -- just like I can mention the weather even if I couldn't care less? Now I realize that "mentioning weight randomly" is not the same as "mentioning weather randomly" because the former can hurt people while the latter can not. But in this case the issue has NOTHING to do with my judging people but A LOT MORE to do with my NOT REALIZING saying something can hurt them. The latter amounts to "being naive" which is in many ways the opposite of judgemental (well obviously not the exact opposite, but you get the point: usually ppl who are naive tend to judge others a lot less).

I think again it was more a subconscious thing you were doing, but in your defence we all make mistakes.

Now, if you read what she was saying in her final email, she said SHE was immature for judging ME, she never said I was immature for judging her! In other words, she understood that I was "naive" and for that I was the "victim" of HER "judgement" (I mean, that is exactly what she was apologizing for in her last email!) Now, if thats the case, why didn't she change her mind and decided to be with me?

Because she was only telling you what you wanted to hear so you wouldn't go Blitzkrieg her inbox again.

Well, all her appologies were past tense. In other words, there was "unwritten rule" that whatever was decided back in May 2005 stays.

No unwritten rule, very much written, and by the sounds of the story more than once. The rule was "Let's Just Be Friends".

Actually my intention was NOT to blame her but rather to redeem myself. Now, UNFORTUNATELY, the logic demands that "if its not my fault it is her fault". But that is now how I meant it. I only meant to emphasize "it is not my fault" part and thus imply I shouldn't be rejected for it.

Keeping the Judah quote in this time to help others understand my point. So you redeem yourself by highlighting to a girl your interested in dating that your ex was fat. How does this redeem anyone?! It's not your fault she's fat, but it's definitely your fault you got rejected. Think about it.

I think you misread the pronouns in her email. She was saying SHE was shallow; she never once called me such. And that is precisely the point. If SHE believes it was HER who was shallow, why not "undo" her "shallow" decision and be with me? Apparently it is because the rules of the dating game don't allow her to get me out of friends zone. So, no matter how "shallow" she was while putting me in there, the "rules" tell her I have to stay there.

I really don't know what to say to this but I wanted to keep it in. I think my brain farted. Please see above statements to help review this one.

When did you see her giving me "chance to be more"? As I have shown in the analysis in that post, whenever she mentioned "chance to be more" she was ONLY being polite because I pushed her to. In reality, her mind was made up back in May that there would be nothing more, and she was assuming that "sticking by the decision made in May" is a given.

Reiterated yet again. Not sure why you still think she should be with you. It's like there's 2 voices telling you different things.

My desire to be in relationships has nothing to do with lust. In fact, as a Christian, I don't believe in sex before marriage. Rather, I want to be in relationships to gain social status. And that is precisely why I don't like being "just friends" since the latter implies low status.

I really hope you don't put this in any profile or no one you date finds your posts on WP. So relationships aren't about love, intimacy, romance, bonds, just status. I think whatever status you had, is now gone!

At least in Katie's case it was real. Look at these:
*snip
So you see how her behavior reflects the concept of friends zone. That is precisely what bothers me about her: why is she following that concept so strictly?

Because....you're in the friend zone? And it's not a concept, it's a reality? A concept is an idea, a reality is real. You think (or are telling yourself) she is keeping you as a friend because that is what she must do out of some sort of respect to an idea or code, when the reality is she doesn't like you that way.



Again, this assumes that the girl will use Freud and say "since I bothered mentioning something it means I care about it". But why use Freud to judge my motives instead of simply ASKING ME?

Why mention it at all? Ugh.

Exactly! And this is precisely what I am complaining about. I think it is unfair to judge people by first impressions since people can have a bad day.

Also, what you just said proves the concept of "Friends Zone". Suppose someone had a bad day when he first met a girl; then after that he was completely different person for a year. If there was no "Friends Zone" the girl would realize that the year overweight the first day. But if there is a Friends Zone then she won't be able to "take him out" because "the rules" don't let her.



Look at the bolded word "can". Yes things CAN get ugly with me, but likewise they CAN get ugly with anyone else as well, for the simple reason that no one is perfect. So it is the matter of luck whether the bad day "happened" to be during the first meeting or later on. In light of this, it would be more logical to make a decision based on long term interaction rather than first impression.



These questions can be answered by further interaction with me. Thats why I am saying it would make a lot more sense to take lots of time to get to know someone before making final decisions.



My question was not about the fact but the reason behind the fact -- namely, WHY she didn't like me that way. In particular, why didn't she judged me off of first conversation and was not open to changing her mind based on what she learns about me later.



I weren't in contact with her since back then. I am simply using her as an example to show woman's logic.



No. I am not suggesting about dating the girl against her will; I am suggesting the girl should periodically re-evaluate her opinion. Fine, let her judge me by HER standards; BUT, why can't she re-judge me later on after she judged me negatively the first time? Why is it when her mind is made up she never looks for further information to see if her mind can change?

This is very different from "dating me against her will". I want HER WILL to change so that she would ACTUALLY like me. Even if she were to say "fine I don't like you but I will date you just to be nice" I would still complain why is it she doesn't like me (which is in fact the REAL thing that bothers me in the first place).

Now, does it mean I want to use some kind of mind control? No. All I want is for her to have an open mind. Let her be as strict in evaluating me as she likes, I just want that box of "mind made up" being thrown out the window, so she can re-evaluate things over and over without making up her mind.



When did I say that?

What I said was that I met Anne in math class. If Anne were to like me I would have never joined dating site. But because Anne rejected me I joined dating site looking for "second best" options while still obsessed about Anne. Because of this I was complaining to the girls on dating site (including Katie) how miserable I was while AT THE SAME TIME hoping said girls would date me.

Remember in the CURRENT post I mentioned how girls usually complain to guys they are not interested in but in my case I complain to girls I AM interested in? Well that is an example. Yes I was interested in dating girls on the dating site (which is why I joined that site to begin with). BUT I was using these girls to complain to them about my lack of success elsewhere. No, this was NOT a trick to win their heart by sympathy. Rather, I am simply talking to EVERYONE on the internet about the topic of my bad luck, whether they be male or female (just like I am doing it right now in Wrong Planet). So since the girls on the dating site HAPPENED to be "on the internet", they were part of my audience. But this "coincidence" didn't change the fact that I wanted to date them.



Why is patience a bad sign? This by the way reminds me of "nice guys" being rejected for some unknown reasons. Now you are saying that "nice girls" should also be rejected (in this case she rejected me; but are you saying I should have rejected her if she hasn't)? Now I don't understand either concept. To me "nice girls" would be the number one choice to date, and thats why I feel "nice guys" should be the top dating choice as well.




That is PRECISELY the point I am arguing against. I mean the whole concept of "mind being made up" is unfair, because no one has all the information about the other person. So people should be open to the idea of their mind changing as they learn more information.



Because the mind was made up in May and now it was November. Humans are not robots they evolve. So why would they make a decision that would last for life. Why couldn't they say "in near future we will only be friends, but as for later on we don't know time will show".



Again, she said it in May, now its November. So why can't I ask whether or not her mind changed since then? I mean my mind certainly changes about various things as time goes by, why couldn't her?



I haven't countered my own argument because my own argument WAS that her mind was made up; so if anything I confirmed it. Now, my point was that it is unfair that her mind was made up. But that didn't change the fact that it was -- in fact by complaining that it was unfair I admitted that it took place, otherwise there would be nothing to complain about.

Now, some people, including Dog, said there is no such thing as Friends Zone. Well, when the girls mind is made up that is EXACTLY what Friends Zone is. So the fact that hers was made up is what counters Dogs argument and proves the existance of Friends Zone.



That was not my motive -- I was too naive to think along these lines. Instead I was simply talking about MYSELF and using "people on the internet" as my audience (the way I do right now on Wrong Planet). So Katie happened to be on the internet so she happened to be part of my audience. Because of this I told her about my ex being overweight -- just like I would have told MEN on wrongplanet or wherever. But she happened to take it the wrong way.



Once again I was too naive to think along these lines. Besides, even if I did think along these lines, the first step would be to find out Katies weight (since logically this would only "work" if she is skinny) and I didn't bother doing it (PROOF: In November Katie admitted she was overweight; thus, presumably, she was overweight in May; therefore, "finding out that she is skinny and strategically bringing up my ex" scenario was logically impossible -- whether that be May or November or wherever). So the fact is that I am simply talking about my dating to EVERYONE on the internet -- men OR women -- and ALL get to hear about my girls being overwieght. Katie simply happened to be in the audience.




Maybe I am more naive than others. I mean within the past 7 years it never even occured to me that one can say their ex is overweight in order to tell the current girl how she is better.



And thats what I disagree with: how can a person make life long decision based on just one conversation?

Besides, what you just said proves the existence of friends zone.



I think you misunderstood what I was saying. I told my ex was fat back in May. I was redeeming myself in November. In November Katie first mentioned what I said in May, hence in November I was redeeming myself FROM what I said in May. The way I redeemed myself was to say "I probably said Sarah was fat because you expressed insecurities about your weight so I wanted to make you feel better by pointing out that I don't mind dating overweight women" (now I have no idea whether that was the case since I don't remember mentioning my ex to begin with but that could have been). Now, "blaming" that Dog used probably refers to interpretation "it was your fault you mentioned your weight, if you didn't bring up that topic then I would have never talked about my ex". But that is not what I meant at all. All I meant was to redeem myself as in "my motive of mentioning my ex was pure, I just wanted to make you feel better".



The relationship is what people make of it, thats why its a concept. The way people raised shapes their interactions and affects reality. If you are rich and you won't marry someone poor, thats not a concept thats reality. BUT the idea "I can't marry anyone poor" is a concept and that concept causes the reality of you not marrying them. In the same way, the idea "I can't date anyone who was previously put into friends zone" is a concept; but as a result of that concept there is a reality that she, in fact, wouldn't date anyone who is in the friends zone.



But the question is why doesn't she like me that way. And the answer might well be her self-conditioning. For example, if you don't know that its a bugger, that thing can actually taste good. But the moment you realize its a bugger you want to puke. Similarly, if she was raised in a culture where people took a year to decide whom to date, perhaps she would end up liking people she didn't like at first. But because she was raised in a culture with "now or never" deals, she conditioned herself not to like anyone whom she didn't like at first.



Because I am not a robot, so I can "accidentally" mention things that don't really affect me one way or the other. And thats the point. If you take a robot, the robot is exactly the same every single day, so you CAN judge a robot by first impression. But if you take a human, you have to realize that humans have bad days, they do blunders, etc. So with human you have to take time to get to know them.

Anyway to answer your question, like I said I don't remember actually telling her this so I can only guess why. But knowing myself, I am pretty sure it was one of the following three scenarios:

1. She told me she was overweight so I told her that it is okay with me because my ex was overweight as well. That is similar to telling a black person that you don't mind their skin color because you have black friends yourself. Now that is different from what you were saying my motives were. In YOUR scenario she was skinny and I was telling her "you are better than my ex because you are skinny and she is fat". On the other hand, in the scenario *I* am describing, she said she is overweight and asked me if it bothers me, and I told her "no it doesn't bother me; in fact, my ex was overweight as well and I still dated her". I probably then went on to say that to me what is inside matters more than what is outside (and no I didn't use that argument to say Katie is better than my ex; I was strictly focused on "weight doesn't matter" part).

2. I was telling her that no one likes me. She pointed out that I was able to get a girlfriend after all. I then told her that I was only able to get a girl with "less competition" (and her being overweight is the reason for "less competition"). From logical point of view, this does not imply that I, personally, dislike overweight people. Rather, it implies that majority of males (NOT me) do; as a result, the weight of a girl I am with is a good indication of how attractive I am (not her). Now this does NOT imply I want to be with skinny girls just to prove myself either. Rather I was simply countering her compliment "hey you are attractive since were able to have a girlfriend" by telling her "no I am not -- after all I can't get a girl with lots of competition". From LOGICAL point of view that would, indeed, be the response. Now from EMOTIONAL point of view I might hurt her along the way. But, due to my Asperger, I might simply be too naive to realize that.

3. She asked me to describe my ex and I mentioned she is overweight ALONG WITH mentioning her hair and eye color and so forth. In this case the purpose would be simply factual. If she asked for a description of my ex and I don't mention her weight she would fill in that detail by imagining her average weight and I don't want to mislead her. Now, its not like I am always going around telling how everyone look like in order to prevent people from imagining something else; I don't. But IN THIS CASE if she ASKED how my ex look like, it is only natural to describe.

Now I don't know which of the above three scenarios took place, but from knowing the way I interact I am pretty sure it was one of the three.

Last edited by Roman on 11 May 2012, 8:10 am, edited 1 time in total.