so if you didn't feel like you had to get a girl....

Post Reply New Topic

Professional work in America knows no bounds of time! Actually no other work does either. We work all the freaking time. All this stuff here is procrastination while I do my round-the-clock thing. I am deliberately not thinking about all the work I'm supposed to get done by Sept 1.

I don't know the dating sites well enough to talk demographics, except to say that talky overeducated types tend to go for OKC and other essay-form sites. What I remember of pof from years ago is that it's essentially a trailer park. eharmony, upright types who like structure. Uh...JDate, Jews who're heat-seeking missiles for marriageable other Jews. (Maybe a bad metaphor, considering.) n+1 personals (defunct), postgraduate children who dream of living in Brooklyn. Match.com, the indiscriminate. I don't know. All very impressionistic.

Eureka, you and I agree on this. I'm arguing that I'm comfortable enough with myself to know when I do have reasonable confidence and that I do keep my hands to myself if I don't. That's not what tarantella and starvingartist are arguing. They're going as far to say that clear indications cannot even be given non-verbally, and that men shouldn't consider clear indications to be non-verbal.

Tarantella, I read about rape cases and I know it happens most by accquaintances, but aren't you jumping from kiss to sex too fast tarantella? There's a lack of logic here, a rape can't happen by simply misreading a situation; only rapists claim that.

Let's say the guy misreads the "kiss me" signs and attempts to kiss the girl, she would simply turn her head or tells him no; if he's a normal guy he would stop; but if he keeps kissing her while she's refusing then he's a sex offender, and if he enforces sex on her while she's refusing then he's rapist, and if she's wasted by alcohol then it still rape too.

It cannot happen just from communication misunderstanding, it can't be. It happens only when the guy has a rapist mind.

Rapists don't rape by "accident".

I know I've mentioned the importance of actually using words in high-stakes situations that aren't sexual, like legal affairs where you may think you're in agreement with someone else, but once the words are on paper you realize you've got things to hammer out. The takeaway is that it isn't safe to assume, so if you're doing something important, get clear. Words are good for that.

A friend of mine just posted this on Facebook. He works for Warren Buffett, successful guy.

"An important business lesson that has helped me out quite a bit in life, too.

In 1997 Berkshire was going to take over a hedge fund that had blown up - Long Term Capital Management (LCTM for short). The head of LCTM, John Merriweather and Warren had a little bit of a history and Berkshire was buying the fund with Goldman, so to avoid any confusion Warren picked up the phone and called Merriweather.

The call was reported in the book about the rise and fall of LCTM - "When Genius Failed" - and went something like this:

Warren: John, in 10 minutes you are going to get a fax with a bid for the company. I just want you to know that it is me.

Merriweather: ok.

The lesson is be honest and don't leave the door even a crack open for any sort of misunderstandings."

-------

Honestly, there are plenty of situations in which you might go too far with someone and they'll brush it off and forget about it, no harm done. The problem is that people whom it might hurt don't generally wear signs. If someone's sexually ambivalent and has a difficult relationship with sex, or a history of being abused, or just finds you particularly, memorably intrusive and ggaaaah creepy, things can get serious and stay serious. I'm sure this Temkin guy is totally outraged and also confused, certain(ish) that he did nothing wrong and that even if he did, ffs, eight years to say something?! And then to say it to EVERYONE? But yeah, apparently it was serious.

There's a Mamet film, Glengarry Glen Ross, involving real estate sales. And the top guy's landed a real schmuck, or so he thinks. Sells him a bunch of worthless property in Florida. Very happy about the sale. Except he hasn't made the sale. He just pressed on and didn't hear a no, and the guy signed. Signed voluntarily! Problem: the guy has a few days in which to change his mind, legally. And he'd been pressured the whole way along and just wasn't quick or aggressive enough to resist well, and the whole thing unravels. Oh, the real-estate-salesman outrage. But yep. No sale. It's a great movie, you should see it if you haven't. Great cast.

It's someone else's body; there's all kinds of opportunities for misunderstanding; things can go too fast in the moment for a "stop, I don't want this". So ask, and make sure it's something the other person really wants.

No, I'm saying that if someone is saying he's a sure shot with the nonverbal signals, odds are pretty good he's wrong.

Here's where I'd like a show of hands asking how many ASD folks are actually GOOD at reading nonverbal signals. I mean, seriously, that is one of the diagnostics for ASD, is it not?

I am still not what I would call adept at it, and I'm female - keeping in mind that most women with AS are supposedly so "close to NT" that there is a huge undiagnosed population of them. Also, I've spent 50+ years studying people and making a concerted effort to learn nonverbal language so as not to continually make social faux pas because of my lack of ability in this arena. And yet, I still make them.

Realistically, what are the chances that a young man with ASD is going to be better at it than I am? (Please note, OWS, I'm not saying you're not, but I don't know you personally, so it really is entirely up to you to assess your own ability.) There was a time (in my 20s) when I was utterly convinced that I was socially adept. Only time and experience utimately truly revealed my dearth of abilities.

My point is, advising young men with ASD (when you don't know them personally) to "just be spontaneous and go for it" is, at best, ill-advised. And that is what is happening here. So there are a few of us saying "um, well, actually, maybe that's not the greatest idea ever."

No one knows what really happened that night in Temkin case, it's a he said she said situation; we can't learn from something which is that uncertain.

I just pm'ed you. Please respond ASAP. I am sinking so deep.

They both say there was a brief relationship involving "making out". To her, it was assault. To him, "awkward making out". False accusations of this sort are actually pretty rare, and, as she points out, there's no incentive for her to do so other than standing up and witnessing, essentially. She's not filing charges, she doesn't want anything from him, she just wants to say that it happened. There's actually strong disincentive for her to do it, because women who accuse men of sexual assault and rape are usually pilloried -- it's why many rape victims won't file charges, even with evidence. So: she felt assaulted. He did things to her that she did not want done. That could've been avoided if he'd slowed the hell down in his "awkward making out" and...asked. If she'd given enthusiastic "yes I'd love that, please do that, I want to do this," in actual words, out loud, this would not be happening. But he didn't ask. He just did -- and because she didn't stop him, he figured it was okay.

In defending himself, rather than dealing openly with the problem, he minimizes it and then tries to discredit her by implying that she's attacking him, eight years later, because he dumped her. That's hurting him as much as her statement is. It's too bad, because he's got a ready out: the conversation about these things wasn't so well-developed eight years ago, and if he was unaware of consent and how to ask and when, that's understandable. An example, actually, of what not to do and why. And he could say that, and say he knows better now and he's terribly sorry, and on everyone would roll. But he's not doing that.

I never said I was "sure shot" with nonverbal signals, but what I have said is that I'm comfortable enough with my personal threshold that when I do go for it, it's welcome. Again there were many times when I didn't go for it precisely because I wasn't sure.

No, but I have watched "the wolf of wall street" - which shows similar scenarios; too unnecessary sex scenes tho.

I highly doubt that a girl would simply say a low "no" once that he might not hear - and without physical resistance.
Ok, let's assume he kissed her falsely and she totally got panicked and frozen, a normal guy would sense she's gone mute and there's no reciprocity and would stop at that.

Even an aspie guy can tell that unless he has a rapist mind.

You guys are never going to win,

on one side certain ladies that has been hurt before are all over anything remotely referencing sex and sexuality or masculinity, being way to sensitive about everything on this forum.

And on the other side you have males whom may feel dejected wanting to pick arguments for many of the same reasons just from the other perspective.

Its one of those discussions that will never end and no one will ever win.

Both sides are to defensive and or angry to want to let it go.

No tarantella, making out isn't rocket science.

The case can't be a product of misunderstanding and misinterpreting the "nature" of the making out; one of them is lying, either him or her.

And a too fast penetration without even giving her the chance to show consent verbally (and in my experience it's always verbally ie. "f**k me baby!" Sorry for the language but it's often this, in my case it was "eat me", "f**k my ass now!" because a lot girls here avoid nonmarital vaginal sex for silly cultural reasons so in my encounter the consent was just for oral and anal ... oh I so hate the idea of anal btw) or nonverbally (ie. sitting on his dick); then this guy has a rapist mind, someone who's too determined and feels so entitled to penetrate someone else no matter what.

Last edited by The_Face_of_Boo on 18 Jul 2014, 6:35 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Are you suggesting that I am advising others to "just be spontaneous and go for it"?



I already have: I'm not the one trying to tell an entire gender what to do.

Facetiousness aside, the only "win" I really care about right now is an apology from tarantella, or some kind of admission of wrong, from when she implied I don't respect women or their boundaries and that I may as well be a rapist.

Last edited by onewithstrange on 18 Jul 2014, 6:50 pm, edited 1 time in total.

I haven't been keeping tabs on who is and who isn't. The point is that some are.

I'd also like to point out that virtually any woman (at least in this country) has been raised with the "she was asking for it" culture. I suspect that many of the acquaintance rape incidents were due to the woman feeling that maybe, just maybe, she sent the wrong signals, and felt too guilty to say "no" or "stop" and then immensely regretted it afterwards. That's not appropriate on their part, but, honestly, unless you've lived as a woman with all of the assuming and shaming and blaming that is a part of our daily lives, it's not going to be easy to understand this mindset.

Starvingartist and tarantella and I are saying "give them a clear choice." Women (even NTs) can be just as naive and unassertive as Aspie men. Acquiescence is not always agreement, and giving the other person a choice is the respectful thing to do.

Most of the men I've known throughout my lifetime who were truly adept at reading women actually WERE abusers and predators. They learned and practiced manipulative behavior as a way to score sex, not as a way to connect with a potential romantic partner. Yes, there are women who are just as adept at reading men and utilizing the information to abuse and prey on them. The rest of us are just bumbling along, doing the best we can.

Bottom line: isn't showing respect for another person *always* the right thing to do?