I wish I had female friends

Post Reply New Topic

The reason I am thinking about it is that if she assumed I was single my whole life, others might be assuming it too. And, if so, that might be part of the reason they aren't trying to set me up with anyone.

it's usually exactly the opposite. Having said that, it's not their job to do so. If you want to be "set up" inquire casually of the people you know if they can think of a match

What I meant was that, if I never dated, it presumably implies I am undatable, and the latter is the reason why they wouldn't set me up.

The situation when it's the opposite is if they give me the benefit of the doubt and assume I am datable, just had a bad luck. That would be something they would do for an NT. But in my case, due to my Asperger, they wouldn't give me that benefit of the doubt.



I know it's not their job to do it. After all, nobody has that kind of luck that every single one of their friends is trying to set them up -- but they do have a select few that tried. So the question is why don't I have that select few in my case?

And I don't feel comfortable asking for it, it would just feel too awkward. But once again, others who are being set up probably didn't ask, or at least I assume they didn't.

"What I meant was that, if I never dated, it presumably implies I am undatable, and the latter is the reason why they wouldn't set me up."

that's not the 1st or even 3rd conclusion most ppl jump to about someone unless maybe he's got a horrific or toxic personality. Maybe they think you like being single. Maybe they think if you were interested in dating you'd say so. Maybe they don't know anyone to recommend. Maybe some do think you're gay. Maybe they're busy with their own problems. Maybe they don't think it's their business. Maybe they just don't care . It probably has less to do with you having Aspergers than the aforementioned, and any unmentioned, factors.

I've never had a friend set me up. Lots of ppl haven't. It's not a universal.

If I like being single my whole life -- as opposed to just preferring it at the moment -- then it is abnormal, isn't it. So the question is "why" are they willing to assume this about me?

And what makes it even more frustrating is that I am being miserable due to being single yet people assume I like it.



In what context?

In actuality I am on a whiny side, and when people talk to me I do mention how I am upset I have no friends pretty quick. But I guess outright saying "I am talking about girls rather than friends in general" just feels awkward.

But in any case, what most people tell me is I whine too much. But do you think that whining about "not having friends" is even worse than whining about "not having a girlfriend" -- since the former leads people to believe I am not interested in girlfriends?

But in any case, I didn't whine to most people, only to select few. So I don't know how many people they told about it.



If this is true, this would be worse than everything else put together. This, by the way, is another reason why I am desperate to have a girlfriend, to make sure people wouldn't be assuming this. Of course, thats not the only reason for a girlfriend, I want a girlfriend anyway (I want someone to emotionally connect to, and I want to have kids, among many other reasons). But not being perceived as gay is yet another big one on the list.



Well, you have Asperger's too, so its possible that is part of the reason. But I don't know the symptoms that you have or to what extend others can see it, I am just making a guess.

My mom, when she first came from Russia to the US, she met through her friend a certain American woman who speaks perfect Russian since her grandfather is from Russia and she studied the language as well as Russian culture (she is a historian). In any case, she introduced my mom to a math professor and, after a certain elderly lady my mom was taken care of died, my mom ended up living in the house of that math professor for several years. She paid a very small rent -- but it was really small, cause they became good friends. He died two years ago, so she moved to the house that she was buying herself. In any case, a year after he died, that american lady that speaks Russian told me that when she introduced my mom to that professor she was hoping they would date. That was a big surprise to me since my mom was married to my dad, and she never dated anyone besides my dad ever since she got married. It is true, though that the relationship between my mom and my dad was rocky -- in fact they got divorced from official standpoint, although they acted as a couple. But in any case, that woman that introduced my mom to the math professor simply saw that my mom came to America by herself so she just assumed she wasn't happy in the marriage and introduced her to him (my mom came to America first, because of her new job, and me and my dad joined her two years later). In any case, when I asked my mom about it, she told me she was as surprised to hear it as I was, and that day was the first time she heard it as well -- she never suspected she was trying to set her up, nor was she looking to date anyone either.

I may or may not have ASD- I'm still on a wait list (but I believe I may come out NOS). I'm pretty sure no one bothers to set me up because... I don't care, and they know it. If love happens, great. If not I continue to do my thing.

Lets look at two cases:

Case 1: I don't get it. Then they don't understand how can I not get it.

Case 2: I get it. This implies that I don't care. But then they don't understand how can I argue so hard about something I don't care about.

So both Case 1 and Case 2 is incomprehensible. But then why are they so sure it is Case 2 rather than Case 1? (on my end I know its Case 1, which is the reason I get frustrated).



Thats an interesting point. On the one hand, I am certainly more closed off due to my parents influence. But, on the other hand, if this is truly something that came from past generations, then how come right now people seem a lot less patient and understanding than they were a couple of decades ago? Or could it just be an effect of me being younger back then and them being more patient with people that are younger?



Okay, lets say the bully says this to me, and lets say someone asks "if the bully doesn't like you, why would they say that they like you?" My answer would be "they say it so that they can laugh at me afterwords: namely, they will laugh at how stupid I am for believing them (if I do)". But now, if I ask the same question about myself: "If I don't like the other person, why do I bother insisting that I do", I can't give the same answer since, obviously, I am not laughing: on the contrary, I am really upset. So what would be the answer in my case?



If people are different, then they have to interpret each person based on how that person operates rather than based on themselves. So, if I try to interpret them, I have to convince myeslf that when THEY use logic they are being cold -- despite it being the opposite for me. Likewise, when they are trying to interpret me, they have to convince themselves that when *I* am using logic, I am being passionate -- despite it being the opposite for them.



But the situation is that they are the ones tired of talking about it, and I am the one pushing and pushing the subject despite them telling me they are done. So how can they interpret "that" as me just being polite?



Do you think holywood is one reason why I keep getting rejected?



Thats what happened to me actually. Back when I was 21 I got hurt on emotional level and, ever since then, I became really logical about my relationships. But when I say that thats the case nobody believes me because being logical seems too much like Asperger and everyone knows that Asperger is what you get from birth. But this doesn't change the fact that I remember that, during that crush I had when I was 21, I wasn't trying to be logical about it, and I konw I started using logic to interpret relationsihps only after that specific incident. I "was" logical about lots of other things, though. So maybe the reason I wasn't logical about love is that I didn't care abbout dating altogether -- which goes hand in hand with what I said about my logic being hand in hand with passion. But after that one hurt I became both desperate "and" logical in the dating realm.



But, in some way, she does know. After all, she rejects me "because" she anticipates she would "find out" if she doesn't. Now, lets say that, on the scale from 1 to 10, she things that my problems are somewhere between 7 and 10. So if she finds out that its a 10, then yes, there will be more pressure. But what if she finds out its a 7, then it would be the opposite, less pressure. So are you saying that finding out its a 7 won't help her nearly as much as finding out its a 10 would hurt her?



I often do.



That is probably the exact reason they reject me. I guess my question is: how are they so sure it won't work out? On my end, I am willing to change. But for some reason people perceive me as unchangible, and I am wondering why.



But wouldn't leaving me right away also amount to failing?



Yes, I remember an example of it. There was a girl who wanted to date me, and she suggested coming to my dorm. I told her I was looking forward to snuggling in my dorm in front of my roommates so that they see that I am not a loser. She continued to talk to me but few hours later she found a different reason to end things. When she got in touch with me again few weeks later just to say hello, she finally told me that the reason she ended things was because of my comment about my roommate. She said that she felt that I didn't like her at all, I just wanted to use her. But you see, she was wrong. From my point of view, its totally possible to want several different things at the same time. Yes, I like her, yes I want to hang out with her, and, at the same time, I also want my roommates to know I am not a loser. Those things aren't related, as evident from the fact that I was ALSO looking forward to hanging out with her at the places where my roommates are highly unlikely to see me. And, besides, in terms of what is more important, certainly having a girlfriend is more important than what roommates think, which again implies that roommates isn't a sole reason. But that doesn't negate the fact that roommates are still important at least to "some" extend. So, since I chatted with her for like 10 hours in a row, I mentioned lots of different things, so I mentioned roommates too. But that doesn't mean roommates is "all" I care about: within those 10 hours I spent only like a couple of minutes talking about roommates.

But back to more general point. Why can't I like a girl AND want my self esteem improved at the same time? And why isn't it possible that the girl brings with her two SEPARATE positives: one positive is that I like her regardless, and the other positive is that she happens to improve my self esteem. Why should one exclude the other?



I guess in case of the girls that live far away and/or whom I perceive as of lower status, it is closer to "hoping", but when it comes to girls that live close by and whom I perceive as higher status its closer to "expecting". But I guess it is never exactly expecting since, for one thing, the relationship might not work out, as my track record shows. So I dunno.



I think I am pretty open about my social difficulties. I am not sure whether I explicitly say that I hope for relationship to make things better, but I am pretty sure I do at least with some girls. It really depends on a conversation. I am very open and I don't hold things back. The only reason I won't say it is if the topic won't come up.



But when you say "a little disappointed" does it mean you leave or do you still stay?

But then again, its possible the girls I dated would have stayed too if I didn't argue. Usually what happens is that they act disappointed, then I start arguing in order to "fix" it, but instead I make it worse since now they become upset that I argue, so then this snowballs.

I wish I could learn better ways of "fixing" things like that.



Yeah I usually don't have a courage to just start a conversation like that. But then again, like you said, a hobby might make it easier. As of now I go to Bible studies, but it doesn't help, people aren't talking to me there.



"Undatable" or "aren't interested in those things" or "aromantic" or "asexual" would hurt almost the same. I think this is probably one of the main things that holds me back dating-wise and its super frustrating.



Like what are some examples of it?

The NOS diagnosis was in the DSM 4 but now, under DSM 5, they no longer have it. They just have ASD with three different levels.

Or are you saying you are in Europe so they use ICD 10?



Well, at least in your case, you "in fact" don't care; but in my case they "assume" I don't care when I do. Thats why its frustrating.

Yes- my comment was a bit wry/cynical: NOS under the old which means probably nothing under the new. I don't know. I meet many of the V criteria but don't fit into the 1-3 levels.

They don't get that it's case 1 simply because the idea of case 1 existing is too absurd for them. You know, they don't understand that something they see as "common sense" (like different social rules that no one ever teaches) or "common knowledge" (like what celebrities are the thing right now) could not be known by someone.
Have you ever been in a situation where you knew something and your companion didn't, but which was such an obvious thing to you that you had hard time believing that they didn't know it? It's like that.

People indeed tend to be more patient with younger ones. Toddlers and small children are a given if you ask me, and with teenagers/young adults many older adults are patient because they have the attituded "he/she is young, he/she will learn." It's like making certain mistakes is so common among young people that it's by no means abnormal, others see it as likely to happen, but when someone who's almost 40 messes up something that's usually only done by teenagers/young adults, then it's not so good because people are expected to have learned certain things by then.
It can also be that society doesn't expect people to put up the same kind of good front as it used to, that it's now more socially acceptable to let others know that you're angry or getting impatient.

The other person might think that you are just acting because you want a good laugh about it, just like in the bully's case. Unless you've gotten the other person to trust you, they have absolutely no reason to believe you if they get the impression that you're trouble even if you say you aren't. Or they might think that you're with them just because you haven't gotten anyone better and will leave them the second you do. Again, you insisting that it's not the case won't mean a thing if you haven't won over their trust.

Exactly! That's one of the very basics of succesful communication: remembering that people have minds of their own and that just because you see and experience things one way, someone else might not have the same views. But of course, you getting it doesn't help if the other party won't also get it. But usually, the other party isn't getting it to be mean; they just really "don't get it." The more someone has been around others very much like them, the harder it will be for them to understand others who think differently.

In that case it can't really be seen as polite... maybe as the opposite? You know, some might think that if you insist on keeping talking about something that they no longer want to talk about, you're being mean and uncaring of their opinion on the matter on purpose?

No, absolutely not. Even if people get unrealistic ideas about love from watching movies, it's not the fault of those who made the movies. Movies don't force people to think certain way, people decide it themselves. But you can't blame the women watching them about it either; they're free to have their own dreams and ideals about what a relationship should be like.

...Now I'm a little lost here. If someone rejects you on the first or second date, it's not necessarily about your problems. It can just be that she doesn't see enough in common between you two after all or finds out about some deal breaker that you have. This whole 10 and 7 thing though, I have no idea what you're trying to say.

That's the reason most people reject the people they reject. It's not that they're sure that things won't work out, but if they have a feeling that they'll be able to find someone more suitable who they'd have more in common and fun with, why wouldn't they? A human being's life span is limited; people can't afford to waste it. If they think they have a better chance with someone else, of course they will take it in order to have as much time as possible to enjoy their lives. They'd rather search for someone who things are very likely to work with than take the risk of wasting time with someone who they don't have as big chance to be able to make things work with. Besides, if they settle for someone who is just "okay", the idea that their life could be so much better if they'd kept looking for a good match could haunt them for the rest of their lives.

Rejecting someone right away isn't usually considered a failure because nothing has started out in the first place. You can't fail at something that never existed.

Some people are sensitive you know, especially if they've had bad experiences in the past. Maybe that girl had been someone else's "trophy girlfriend" before and what you said triggered a trauma? Or maybe she had friends who had ended up as ones and now felt like she was being used as one as well? I have no way of knowing, but that's a few possible reasons.
One doesn't exclude the other out (automatically), but if the woman feels like you like the fact that you have a relationship more than you like her as a person then that's often a deal breaker. If you want to show off the fact that you have a relationship then, well, that could make a woman feel like they're being treated like some object you've won.

Lower status? Higher status? What do you mean by these words? Are you talking about the amount of wealth and how educated one is, some old style cast system where one's position is decided by what family they're born in to or what?

Saying that you're not used to people/aren't very social is often fine, but going in to details after you've just met doesn't tend to leave a good first impression. I'd advice against going in to too much detail with someone you don't know.

Leave as in ditch the whole friendship/relationship? I wouldn't cut someone out of my life just because they don't like something I like or agree with me on something (big moral issues being an exception; for example, my life has no room for someone who thinks that one religion is above the others and the rest are somehow "wrong"), but the less we have in common the less likely we're to spend time with each other. For examble, let's say I invited someone to a walk with me during the night so we can look at the stars. The person says that they don't like star gazing, so from then on I won't invite that person to that activity anymore. That alone won't matter, but if there are a lot more things that I like but they don't (and the other way around), then naturally the amount of time we'll be spending together will be less and less. In other words, we'd just drift apart naturally.

Why would those three hurt as much as the "undatable" -part? I mean, if people see you as undatable then it's really hard to fix, but if they think you're asexual, aromantic or just otherwise not interested, then just fixing up the misunderstanding will raise your chances.

Avoiding eyecontact is the one I was taught as a teenager and am pretty sure it aplies in America too. Then there's having your arms or legs (when sitting down) crossed when talking to someone (this one I learned while looking for tips on how to pass job interviews.) Then there's yawning a lot during the conversation, unless you also look tired. These are the things that come to my mind first and I'm sure there are many I don't know of.

But case 2 is also absurd. So how come, between the two absurdities, they choose to believe in case 2?



I remember one time I went to subway and there were a bunch of students and the person who works there told them that students get a discount. So I asked if I am a graduate student do I also get a discount, but he acted like I said "I have graduated" as opposed to "I am a graduate student". I was repeating several times and he was still not getting it. So I have no idea whether he truly didn't know what graduate school was or whether he pretended not to -- and in the latter case I don't know what his motive might have been. But, in either of those two cases, I would be majorly pissed off at him, just for different reasons. I do still wonder which one it might be.

Another such example was when I left cell phone in the office but couldn't get to the office since it was night, so I asked someone in the dorm to call a taxi for me at the dorm that is a bit away since I didn't feel comfortable walking in the dark. While we were waiting for the taxi, he tried to have a conversation with me, so he asked me about the things I study. I mentioned "topology" and he asked me few different times what that was, and it was getting on my nerves that he didn't know it, then finally he said "typology" and I was like "okay fine" and didn't correct him cause I lost patience. But, in my head, I was rather annoyed why he would confuse topology with typology.

And another such example was when I was taking an uber to the airport to fly from new mexico to San Francisco for summer break. So the driver asked me "where are you going" I said "California" and he respond "to Los Angeles?" Obviously he is not a mind reader so I can't expect him to know I am going to San Francisco. But, at the same time, I "do" expect him to know that in California there are many distinations. So why didn't he just ask me "what city in California" instead of asking me if its Los Angeles.

I guess the reason it was annoying is that I interpret it as them being slobs, which I guess might be the way people see me too. So maybe thats where inside perspective versus outside perspective comes in. I think those guys are slobs and I am not because they mess up in the ways I can't relate to since i don't mess up in those particular ways. So perhaps thats how others see me too since I mess up in ways they can't relate to. I guess maybe one difference between me and those guys is that I am trying to engage in the long discussions in order to correct things, and they certainly don't do it. If they did engage in those discussions with me, I wouldn't have been annoyed any more -- which is part of why I engage in them.



Maybe the other outcome of "he/she will learn" is that they were more willing to actually "teach" me back when I was young. For example, sometimes I study at the restaurants and, when I do, sometimes I sleep. Back when I was in my early 20-s, they told me "no sleeping at the restaurants". Granted, I found it weird, and was asking others to explain. But that was mere curiosity. It didn't hurt me at all -- the reason it didn't hurt me is that I stopped sleeping, problem solved. But then, several years later, I started sleeping in the restaurants again, but this time nobody told me to stop. So I was thinking "wow I am wondering why nobody stops me, but in any case its convenient so why not do it". So I did. But then, eventually, someone offered me money and I got upset that they thought I was homeless. So I guess the bottom line is that with younger people they teach them, with older people they just jump to conclusions. And its frustrating cause I do want to change, but when I am saying "I will change" people say "you don't have to change, just be who you are". THey weren't telling me "be who you are" back when I was younger. Sometimes I wonder if its becuase they think older people don't change anyway. Or maybe the time is different now and people were brainwashed with the mantra "be who you are" a lot more. But it hurts since in my question "will I die single and childless" I get a response "even if you do, its okay, as long as you stay who you are". Well, its not okay "for me", but they don't care.

Another possibility is maybe in different states they do it differently? I was told not to sleep in the restaurants in Minnesota. Then in Michigan I never tried to sleep, I simply assumed I shouldn't. But then in Mississippi and New Mexico I noticed that if I sleep nobody stops me. So I am not sure if the geographic location is part of the reason.



So have you observed this as well? Do you have any theories as to when did this type of shift in attitude occurred and what caused it?



But then why does my face look so upset? Do they assume I am such a good actor that I can fake an upset face and then laugh when they no longer see me?



That part actually happened to me a few times, when I was settling on girls I had absolutely nothing in common with simply because I didn't have anyone else. But then again, there were also girls I actually liked. So I guess, logically, a given girl wouldn't know what category she falls into. But I wish they could give me benefit of the doubt.

If their "evidence" that I settle is that I did something mean, I don't think its a good evidence. Even in the situation when I am with this girl simply because I can't have anyone else, the fact that I can't have anyone else would be enough to motivate me not to do bad things -- unless, of course, I am unaware why certain thing is "bad". And if I am unaware that it is "bad" then I might also do it with the girl I actually like.



So what you just said implies that autistics don't have "more" communication problems than NT-s. Rather each group has communication problems when it interacts with the other group simply because they have less in common with them.



But then why wouldn't they care to listen to my explanation so that they can understand it better?



The question is: if I don't care about the topic, why would I talk about it? If I was "trying to be polite" that would be an answer. But "being rude" doesn't seem to answer it. After all, being polite is a goal, but being rude isn't. Rather, rudeness is a situation when you ignore the goal of being polite for the sake of more important goal (in my case, to communicate the point and resolve a disagreement). So, if I didn't care about the issue (like they assume I didn't care), there would be no bigger goal for the sake of which I would be motivate be rude.

Or are you saying that they think that being rude is, indeed a goal? If so, is it due to what we said earlier, that I presumably want to be rude so that I could laugh about it, or are there other reasons?



The reason I feel like its my problems is that obviously "somebody" is compatible with her. So what is the difference between me, who is presumably incompatible, and some other person, who is compatible? So it would be something about me. Now, I realize that something about me might not be something bad. Lets say she likes arts I like science and she wants someone closer to things she likes. But I guess I suspect that, due to my Asperger, in many cases it "is" something about me that comes across as bad. For one thing, there is a pattern that far fewer girls like me than there are girls that like other people. So, statistically, I am "worse" in some way. And, secondly, I remember examples of girls that openly told me that they don't want to date me because I have Asperger. Granted, their number is quite small, since most people are too polite to say it out loud. But maybe other girls were thinking in their heads the same thing, just didn't say it.



Let me explain the context in which I said it. You said that the reason girls wouldn't want to date me if they know I expect them to change my life for the better is that it puts too much pressure on them. Then I pointed out that the only kind of "pressure" it would put on them is that they are afraid I would get upset if they fail at helping me as much as I wished -- and if I feel bad that would reflect on them since they would feel guilt. But, if thats the case, wouldn't they also be worried that if they refuse to date me from the start I would also feel bad which would also cause them to feel guilt? Then your response seemed to be along the lines that if they reject me from the start they would only have a general idea I would feel bad but they wouldn't know all those specific ways in which I would -- and the more specific ways they learn the more guilt they would feel. So then I said that this logically relates to the idea that different ways hurt differently -- and thats where the rating 1 through 10 comes in. So if they let me down when they "only" know its between 7 and 10, they won't feel as guilty as they would if they let me down when they know its 10. But this is not a good enough reason since there is a flip side. What if they will find out its a 7? Then they would feel even less gulity then if they only know its between 7 and 10. So it can go both ways: interacting with me before dumping me can make them either more OR less guilty. And, if so, then "on average" dumping me later would make them feel "the same" amount of guilt as dumping me sooner. But, if so, then why are they all trying to dump me sooner?



Yeah, I learned this the hard way: now I am 39 and still single and still a student, because I didn't manage my time as best as I could.

Anyway, when they think of "their" time being limitted -- and see that I am far behind them since htey learned social skills and I havne't -- how do they envision my future? Don't they feel bad about it at all? I realize their own time for them is their main priority; but still, what do they think about me if they were asked?



I guess I was more thinking in the direction of guilt than failure. Like, don't they feel guilt that they could have alleviated my suffering and didn't?

Or are you saying I misunderstood you when I identified failure with guilt? Are you saying that the two are different, and they are better equipped to deal with guilt than to deal with failure?



Thats certainly possible. And that is part of the reason why I wish people were to give me second chances. Over time, I would have learned what it is they are sensitive to and not do those specific things. But if I just strike out when I hit the very first thing, then I can't really do anything, nor can I even learn for the future relationship: since different people are sensitive to different things and I cna't predict who is sensitive to what, until I accidentally do one of those things -- and strike out "unless" the other person is willing to give me second chances.



Let me give you an example. When they told me back in 2006 they would kick me out unless I find an advisor by June 1, I was telling everyone "please take me so that I don't get expelled" -- so by this logic it sounded like I didn't care about physics I only cared about not getting expelled: and a lot of them "did" come to this conclusion. But thats not true. The evidence that it is not true is that both before and after that specific semester I very much DID care about physics, and I ask the types of questions nobody else asks because I care about it. So you see, its possible to do both: both care about physics "and" ask for a project not to be expelled. Well, with girls too, its possible to like a given girl "and" want her to be with me just so that i can be in a relationship. Sure, if I "just want to be in a relationship" I might settle on the girls I don't like, but I might also be lucky enough to run into a girl I actually like: one doesn't exclude the other.



I guess the main thing I can think of when it comes to "most" girls would be wanting the ones that are educated. Also someone who fits in socially and is willing to help me fit in. No, not wealth -- unless someone is so super wealthy as to make it impossible to ignore -- but thats not something I am thinking of unless I run into it.



Yeah I also observed that when I go into it too much it tends to push people off. I guess its hard to resist since whenever I run into that one person that is patient with me I am thinking "wow she is an exception to every rule, she would sure be patient" -- which she would be for some time, but then I would be surprised when I push her off too. So I need to control myself better.



In my experience they did ditch me over small things. So maybe those things -- in their minds -- were comparable to the religious intolerance in your mind. Either that, or maybe it wasn't important until I made it so due to arguing on and on (but then again the reason I was arguing is that they distanced away which is what made me feel it was a big deal -- although its also possible I overreact to distance since I am insecure).



But I had examples when the girl thought I said something to that effect when I didn't.

For example, my second ex thought I told her I don't like spending time with her friends, so she didn't invite friends over that often. But what I "actually" said was quite different: I said "I feel really special that I was the only one invited to your birthday". This is true. But its also true I would enjoy spending time with her friends, as well. I mean different things have different positives. If I am the only one invited, I feel special. If I spend time with her friends, I get to do the fun things that wouldn't occur to me otherwise. Both are positives. So its also nice to feel special at one point and get to spend time with her friends at the other point. But she didn't realize it.

The other example was when a different girl (not she wasn't one of the three long term ones, she was one of the short term ones) invited me to her appartment and I said "what is that stink". It was her candle. But I didn't realize it was a candle because I didn't know that there is such a thing as candles with that kind of smell -- I only konw the candles that smell like wax as opposed to other things. On the other hand, my room was quite messy and yes my room was stinking since I left rotten food or something like that. So I was assuming that her room was stinking for the same reason. When she told me it was a candle then I no longer disliked it: on the contrary I realized the smell was enjoyable. Yet she was no longer putting that candle because she thought I didn't like it. But since she was upset by that as well, I started trying to persuade her to put that candle back -- which eventually she did, but it took like few days of arguing to get her to do it.



IF I could fix up the misunderstanding, then yes it would be better. But the problem is that I don't know how to fix it. And its for two reasons:

1) The subject never comes up. Or, if I try to bring it up (like I did with the Adventist girl) they change the subject

2) It seems like people don't believe me when I talk about my own feelings -- just like the girls don't believe me when I tell them that I like them. Why don't they believe me? I am confused myself thats why I was asking it, but it seems like they don't.



But you see, those things are thought to imply the person is unfriendly "at the moment". Yet, we were talking about "what makes it look like I never want to date". So it seems like people are assuming "if someone is unfriendly at the moment they are unfriendly their whole life and therefore they never date in their whole life". But why would they draw such huge conclusions out of someone's mood that might be temporary?

Absurd to you, you mean. We went through this, didn't we? Just becauce you think something's absurd, it doesn't necessarily mean others think that, too.

See, there it is. You assume people to know and understand things, too. Keep that in mind next time you get upset about someone else assuming something about you.

Yeah, I think people do jump to conclusions with older people, but I don't think you should be too hard on them for that. Majority of people learn the basics at younger age, so plenty of people won't even consider that an adult might not know some social rules unless they weren't raised properly or aren't from a different culture. Again, the idea that someone "just doesn't get it" is very bizarre to many.

I think it's probably a sum of many things, but one I'd say is the rise of women's rights. In the old times (and even now in some countries), women were property that was to be seen but not heard. After women started to fight for their rights and started to get them, they also got the right to speak their mind more openly instead of always having to submit to the surroundings. So when women started to stand up for themselves, which used to be something only men were allowed to do, men started to be even more straight forward in order to still seem more "manly."
And of course, there's the changes on what an individual person could do. In the past, a person's well being depended a lot more on the community around them than it does now, so they needed to be more mindful of who they made mad.

Possible, yes. And are you sure your face looks upset? Apparently, the expressions of lot of autistic people don't really match what they're feeling, or at least that's what it looks like to NTs.

But don't you see that as morally wrong? You know, leading on a woman you aren't actually interested in? If I found out that a guy was with me because he couldn't find someone he'd consider more suitable who'd agree to be with him, I'd never want to see him again.

Bingo, that's exactly what I'm saying! For examble, I used to have very bad sensory issues (and in NT standards they're still pretty bad), but my family just wouldn't get it no matter what way I tried to talk about those to them. However, when I brought up something that had happened in an autism forum that I used, plenty of people got it and shared their own similiar experiences. It's not that we don't feel empathy, it's just that we have harder time relating to an average person that NTs in general 'cause we're so much further from average than your typical NT.

Not sure about that one... I suppose some people just don't like to listen to others. My mom's a little like that.

Being rude is a goal to some people. Or, to be more exact, upsetting the other person is often a goal. Being rude is just one way to get to that goal. So yes, they might assume that to be your goal.

I think you're overthinking it. There is no man (or woman) in this world that some people wouldn't reject. As for why you apparently get more rejections, well, you are autistic, right? That comes with bad social skills, though they can be improved. Bad social skills really lowers one's chances in the "dating market."

Like I said, they won't know how much it'd hurt you if they never get to know you. Sure, they'd probably think you'd be somewhat hurt/dissapointed after rejection, but that's simply because most people are... and get over it pretty fast. However, getting over an actual break up tends to take longer. So of course, if it becomes rather clear from the start that someone isn't a good match, they'll be dumbed fast since, in most people's cases, that hurts less. Plus, neither has to waste their time. Also, it's not just about you being hurt and them feeling quilty, they can feel hurt too.

If by "they" you mean some random strangers, then I'm pretty sure they simply don't think about your situation. Why would they? Do you feel bad for the children dying from hunger in wars? For the physically disabled people who don't have a cure? For dying cancer patients? You probably do now, but you weren't thinking about these things right before reading this, were you? The thing is, while most people know there are various people out there who suffer in different ways, most people don't think about it much unless given a reason to think about it. If you were to tell a random stranger about your problems, some would definitely feel bad, but would they be willing to go out of their way to make you feel better? Probably not. Everyone has their own problems, so the amount of sympathy and support they can give to others is limited. The amount of sympathy and support people want to give others is even more limited, especially when it comes to strangers.
Here's a little question for you: what did you do on your twentieth birthday? What was going through your mind that day? Can you remember? 'Cause I remember mine very well and I bet what the two of us were thinking at those times were very different things. (And yes, I'm bringing this up for a reason.)

Failure and quilt are way different. Failure is when things go wrong, quilt is when you know/think you're the reason things went wrong and would definitely fix it if you could... of course, these two can go hand in hand, but they're often separate, too.
Also, why would they feel quilty for not doing anything about their suffering? They didn't cause it; people don't usually feel quilty about things that aren't their fault. And what if they started to suffer while trying to ease your suffering, would that make you feel quilty?

Are you sure you haven't gotten plenty of second chances? Maybe you messed up many times, but the times you've been ditched have been the only times you've noticed that you've done something wrong in the first place since the results were so clear. Has happened to me quite few times with some friends... NTs often don't point it out when you do something wrong, they just assume you'll realize it yourself from looks and such.

True, one doesn't exclude the other, but if one feels like a relationship is more important to their partner than being with them as a person, then it can ruin the relationship. Facts on what you really meant don't help here, you need to understand the other person's feelings and meet their emotional needs to fix things like that up.

The education thing I can understand, but if you don't want someone who can't fit in socially then I'd say you have no right to complain about being rejected for your asperger. I mean, if you consider someone less datable because they don't fit in socially, then it's perfectly fine for others to consider the same about you, too.

Some people tend to jump to conclusions. More of an NT thing, but autistic people do it a lot too, or so I'd say based on what I've read from this forum.

First impressions matter. If you give a bad first impression, you are far less likely to get a second chance than if you gave good one. Sure, you might just be having a bad day instead of being a jerk, but people who you meet won't know that. And, like has been said, people have limited time, so instead of trying to find out if someone's really a jerk or not they'd rather just find someone who doesn't come off as a jerk.
You can't just keep blaming others for misunderstanding you, you need to take some responsibility for your actions, too.

The thing that I found absurd is "saying" that I like a certain person when in actuality I don't. The reason it is absurd is that people lie when they want to get something out of that lie. Now, what can I get out of this particular lie? I can get out the possibility of being around that person. But if they think I don't like them, then obviously this "gain" won't really be a gain. So what else can I gain out of that lie then? I guess if that person is rich I can gain money. But I never ask people for money. So what else would I be trying to get?



Thats an interesting point, that leads to further question. Back in the 90-s I used to observe that women were friendlier with me than men. Right now I see the opposite, that women ostracize me a lot more. So I guess what you just said would explain this "if" you were to say that womens rights started in 2000-s. But thats not entirely accurate: I remember back in the 90-s the womans rights was a big topic of discussion in my high school among other places. So could it be that

a) Womans rights movement became even stronger now

or

b) Back then I wasn't seen as a "man" but rather I was seen as a "kid", which is why it didn't fully apply to me?

The other thing is that I remember a couple of examples of women being nice to me in the 90-s where you can't just say they were trying to be polite but rather it seemed genuine. One example was that I was in high school, and I was taking summer class at the university (in America high school students are allowed to take university classes) and I was kicked out of that class for asking too many questions. Then, a couple of months later, one of the students that took that class stopped me and asked me why was I kicked out. I told her a long story of what happened, she listened throughout the whole thing and then said that she thought the professor was just mad and told me that I didn't miss that much. Then the other example was that I was in high school standing in the line somewhere (I am guessing for an ID or something) and I was asking some questions that were more along the lines of curiosity than anything else, and I was asking them to the male teacher in his 40-s, and he refused to answer -- but then the girl next to me told me that he was really mean.

So you see how it were the girls that were trying to be nice to me this way rather than guys? Well, that was the 90-s. But right now it is the opposite. I would say both genders ignore me, but girls ignore me even more.



But, as someone with Asperger, I am not that influential. So how would this motivate people to be nice to me? Is it because

a) They wouldn't know if I might become more influential in the future, so they would be nice to me just to be safe

or

b) They would worry about my well being. Right now the only thing that happens to me is loneliness, but in the past I would have died from starvation. So they care about me enough to keep me from dying from starvation yet they don't care about me enough to keep me from loneliness.



The reason I was talking about face looking upset is that this is what others tell me in response to the question "why people don't talk to me". My own observation is that my face can go both ways: if I think of something funny I can laugh inappropriately, or if I think of something sad I can look upset. But when I ask "why people don't talk to me" then, in this particular context, nobody tells me "its because you laugh inappropriately", they only tell me "its because you look upset". Thats why I was focusing on this. I guess its also true that if I compare myself in the 90-s to myself now, then back in the 90s I was laughing more and right now I look upset more -- and like I said, people avoid me now more than they did in the 90s -- so that also agrees with the answer I am given.

In any case, the way my laughing or being sad works -- both in the 90-s and now -- is that I laugh when I think of something funny. And one of the things I find funny is when I see how what I did at some particular time is totally absurd, and then I would laugh at myself. Since back in the 90s people were more willing to tell me when I do something wrong and right now they just avoid me without saying anyting, thats why back then I laughed more. However, the math professor with whom I am working on the thesis is pretty forward when it comes to pointing out the things I do wrong, so I would laugh. But you see, he is already angry at the math mistakes that I was making, so laughing in this case is totally inappropriate -- but the fact that I know its inappropriate only makes it harder for me not to laugh so I would laugh and he would comment on me laughing and get even more mad.

But, when it comes to social things, especially women, most of them don't tell me what I do thats wrong, they just avoid me out of the blue. Thats why when people simply look unfriendly and I have no idea why, then I don't laugh but look sad instead. And, when I walk down the street, I oftentimes dwell on the times when people were mad at me and didn't explain why -- thats why I look sad when I walk down the street. But even if I think of my interaction with that math professor while walking down the street, I would more likely look sad than laugh. Because like I mentioned what makes it harder not to laugh is when I know I shouldn't. Well, when I walk down the street, this particular factor isn't part of the equation. So then I would be less likely thinking of specific aspect of it that made me laugh and more likely thinking about the big picture -- and the latter would make me look sad.

The other thing is that I don't really know how to do a "social smile" -- for example, I don't know how to smile for the photo, or smile because I say hello, etc. Either I smile because I think of something funny or I don't smile at all. Otherwise it would look like a forced smile.



It would be morally wrong if I was planning on breaking up with her. But I am not planning on this because breaking up would hurt "both" of us, not just her. And even if it was just her I would feel bad about it too.

Case in point: I dated my second ex for two years but, after one year, I no longer liked her. Yet I stayed with her because I didn't want to hurt "her" by breaking up. And no it had nothing to do with me not being able to find someone else. Back then I kept promising myself that if I will ever get "lucky enough" for her to break up with me, I would stay single for the rest of my life since I can't afford all this drama. Obviously I no longer felt that way after she did break up with me and I had time to recover, but at least I felt that way when I was with her. So this proves that the reason I stayed was because of not wanting to hurt her as opposed to any selfish need.

Anyway, what I was trying to say is that I don't plan to date someone and then break up. So this implies that I, in fact, plan to date someone and stay with them for the rest of my life. I just feel like if I am not "in love" with them that doesn't necesserely mean its a bad idea. As long as I "like" their company that would be something positive. I guess it would be a bad idea in a sense that I might run into someone I can fall in love with and they might love me back and then I wouldn't be able to be with them because I am taken. But I guess I was assuming that, due to my Asperger combined with age the chances for this are very small. But if my assumption is wrong then I agree with you.



My situation with sensory issues is the opposite to yours. I don't have any sensory issues at all, but my first ex had hard time believing me and kept asking me if the places she took me were too loud -- which I found frustrating. But, at the same time, during the first two months of a relationship this wasn't the issue: on the contrary she was treating me as if I was NT. But then when some social problems came up then she decided to treat me as an aspie -- which also implied asking me about sensory stuff too. Now, I told her about my Asperger at the very beginning of a relationsihp. So I guess she was capable of assuming that my Asperger is so mild that I am just like an NT, and she was also capable of assuming the opposite that I am extremely severe aspie with all that it entails, but she couldn't wrap her mind around anything in-between, such as me being severe from social point of view and mild from sensory point of view.

In any case, back to your situation. I guess -- despite not having sensory problems myself -- I would still be able to relate to it, since I read things about other aspies and autistics having sensory problems. For example I read Temple Grandin and Donna Williams' books, and I read some people in the internet talking about them. The other reason why I would be able to relate to it is that -- even though I don't have sensory problems -- I have Asperger. Thats why I would pay attention to anything that pertains to Asperger. Similarly, if something pertains to Russia or America or Judaism or Christianity I would pay attention too, since I can relate to those topics. But if, instead, I read something I can't relate to from any angle, then I would be more likely to misunderstand it or ignore it.



But "why" is it they don't like to listen? Is it because they don't trust them? Or is it because they are simply too lazy to listen?



So people whose goal is to be rude, are they trying to be rude to everyone or to some people in particular?

If they want to be rude to everyone then it seems like they would ruin their own life if everyone hates them, so do they not even care about their own life? Now IF they, indeed, think this way, then it begins to make sense why they would make grand conclusions such as "if a person is unfriendly they would never want to marry or have kids". But I guess to me this just seems an absurd thing to assume.

On the other hand, if they are nice to some people and rude to others, then maybe there is a reason why they are rude to those other people. For example, in my case, the reason is that I feel like the other person insulted me so I want to get even. But if the other person didn't think they insulted me, then, in their mind, what would be my motive of being rude?



The way bad social skills would lower my chances is that they would make other people "wrongly" decide I am "bad" as a person -- which is why I am analyzing exactly how they see me and in what ways they think I am "bad".



Well, in the example of my second ex, I stayed with her the second year out of pity. So I guess I "do" care about some people. I guess as far as the examples you gave, the reason I don't think about them is that I didn't see them in front of my eyes. But if I were to get to know some "individual" who falls into one of those categories, I might care about that individual -- and the second ex is a good example of it. But I guess what prevents me from getting to know those "individuals" is that I feel like we live in entirely different worlds so I wouldn't really stop long enough to talk to them. In case of my second ex, we had things in common: we were both graduate students, etc. The thing that made me feel pity for her was that she lost a lot of blood due to PCOS and could barely walk so I had to take care of her and, subsequently, she became depressed. But none of those things came up until 4 months into relatioship. I "did" however know she was overweight -- but I liked her regardless. So I guess the question is: why can't people relate to me the way I related to my ex for the same reason: just like she used to be my fellow student, I am their fellow student, so why wouldn't my fellow students care about someone that goes to the same university and the same department?



Sounds like a really interesting question. Unfortunately I can't remember what I did. It was too long time ago. What about yourself, what did you do on your 20s birthday?



Guilty in a sense that they didn't help me when they could have. Just like in case of my second ex, I didn't cause her PCOS or blood loss, yet I would have felt guilty if I were to break up with her.



Thats a really good point. I can think of several examples when

a) I kept doing the things that bothered them but they never pointed out to me until it was too late. In this case, I felt like I wasn't really given any chances. Because there are things that bother some people but not others. So, if it is one of those things, how would I know if it bothers a given person? Yes I can read facial expressions, but sometimes they hide the non-verbal cues that it bothers them. They look happy and then, later, I am surprised to learn that it was a problem.

b) The situation similar to a, except that, when I am finally told, the other person isn't breaking up with me yet -- however they act hostile and distant so that I suspect that they do. In this case I would start arguing, and then my arguing would make things worse and, after few days (or sometimes several weeks), lead to breakup. But in this case I still feel like it wasn't really a chance since they didn't say "in future please don't do it". Thats why I interpretted it as if they assumed I will always be like that.

c) Sometimes they do make the comments about not liking something along the way but I don't realize those comments are serious. For example, after I completted my first ph.d. I wanted my first thesis advisor to keep helping me edit papers. He mentioned to me that I should learn how to put opening and closing quote instead of putting two closing quotes. I was assuming it was just a small remark that wasn't that important. Quite independently of this, he was procrastinating when he was editting my papers. Only several years later he finally mentioned that the reason he procrastinated is that reading wrong kind of quotes gave him headache. Well, I never knew that was the case.

d) The situation where I knew what I was doing and was doing it anyway because I "thought" I didn't care about that person "until" it was taken away. Well, in this case I wished I had a chance once I "realized" how much I care about that person. Yes, in order for me to "realize" it they had to distance away. But once I finally realize it, I feel mad at myself that I didn't realize it all those months, and then I want a chance to fix it.

e) Sometimes I push someone away soon after we first meet. So, in this context, its impossible -- timewise -- for it to be a long time. However, its still true that they made repeated attempts to correct me. But what is "repeated" in their mind isn't so in my mind. To them if they tried to reach out to me two or three times its a lot since I didn't react to the first time. But to me its really little, since sometimes I get disracted.



I dated a girl with Asperger Syndrome (no she wasn't one of the three, she dated me short term) and I attempted to date quite a few girls with bipolar, and most of the girls I dated were overweight. So clearly those things didn't turn me off.

When I talked about the popularity of the person I date I talked about extremes: either someone really popular or someone really unpopular. For example, my third girlfriend was former Miss Nebraska whose ancestors were in Mayflower. And a girl that rejected me out of hand several years ago was a sister of a senator. Obviously I can't ignore those kinds of things. Conversely, if a girl is homeless or on drugs then no I wouldn't date her. But when it comes to things in between those extremes then I don't care about it as much.

I guess what you "might" say is: just like I wouldn't date a girl that is homeless, maybe others see me on the same level as I see homeless folk. That is quite possible, particularly given my messy hair: like I mentioned there were a couple of incidents when people attempted to give me money (and I refused). But I guess I want to find a way to do something so that people don't see me that way and instead see me as one of their own. I don't mind being on the same level as people that are overweight for example. And if I am likened to them, then it is perfectly fair for me to ask why don't people date me, since I dated overweight girls.



But why is it they don't believe me when I correct their conclusions? If I truly disliked the smell of that candle, what would I gain out of lying that I like it?



But this paragraph is in response to my question as to why people assume I want to always be single my whole life. In my mind, thats a lot more than thinking I am a "jerk" as you put it. I mean lots of people are jerks but not that many people stay single their whole life. Or are you trying to say that its not true and, in fact, "jerks" do tend to be single their whole life?

Have you noticed a lot of women becoming more unfriendly within just the past three years? If so, here's the most likely possible explanation:

The rise of Trump has emboldened men who "grab 'em by the p****" and otherwise act like total jerks, resulting in many women becoming a lot more afraid of men.

Even during the several years before the rise of Trump, there was an increasing amount of online misogyny, which probably affected the way a lot of men treated women, resulting in women becoming more defensive.

Today's variant of feminism is largely a response to this, whereas the type of feminism that was more popular in the 1990's was every bit as strong, even stronger in some ways, but less defensive.

Actually I didn't notice them becoming less friendly a couple of years ago. What I DID notice is that when I left Berkeley in 2001 they became less friendly. Also I was in India between 2009 and 2014 and when I came back, in 2014, they became considerably less friendly then they were when I left, in 2009. I didn't notice any changes between 2014 and now.

But, in light of what you just said, do you think they are more friendly in left wing states since its sort of "opposite to Trump" and, therefore, men are less likely to harass them over there? I don't know whether its true or not, I am just trying to take your answer and apply it to my observation.

Before I went to India I was in California, Minnesota and Michigan. Then after I came back I was in Mississippi and New Mexico. Do you think those specific states would give the answer, or do you instead think some other changes took place (such as 911 taking place in 2001 and perhaps something else happened in 2009--2014 that I am unaware of)?



Yeah that would be part of the answer to my question, if I understood it correctly. Are you saying that online mysogyny caused men to attack women in the "real" face-to-face interaction? Because I was more referring to the vibes I get from women face to face.



Yeah I noticed that too. Few years ago I was surprised when I noticed that opposition to sexual harassment was part of "feminism". I was assuming that its plain common sense -- just like opposition to murder or robbery has no political association, neither would opposition to sexual harassment. I was assuming I was the one missing something. But could it be that, back in the 90-s, I would have been on the same page with everyone else? Is the idea that the two are related a recent one?

Based on the above and further details below, I suspect that the changes you saw may be rooted more in geographic-based cultural differences than in temporal cultural changes, though the latter may be a factor too.

From what I've heard, Berkeley is, or at least was, a very friendly place, both friendly in general and more specifically nerd-friendly. My boyfriend grew up there. I don't know what it's like at the present time. But almost any place you could have moved to from Berkeley in around 2001 would likely have been less friendly.


Which part(s) of Michigan? The more conservative part(s) or the more liberal/progressive part(s)? Ditto for Minnesota?


A significant part of the answer, yes. Mississippi is notoriously insular and, of course, conservative.

Psychological research has shown that conservatives tend to experience more intense fear and disgust than liberals/progressives. So I'd expect that conservative women would tend (on average) to be more fearful of men and more disgusted by male creeps, yet at the same time fearful of feminism, i.e. fearful of standing up for their own rights as women. Hence I would expect most conservative women to be less likely to be friendly to men whom they don't already know, and more likely to quietly shun any man whom they are not 100% comfortable with -- and less likely to dare to let a man know what he's doing wrong.


I'm not sure exactly when the rise of online misogyny became a significant thing, but this may have been happening during 2009--2014.


I'd expect that Trump-as-negative-role-model could have caused some men in all states, not just conservative ones, to feel freer to harass women.


Most likely yes, at least to some extent. And, more than outright attacks, I think it probably encouraged a change in attitude, with many men feeling more entitled, arrogant, and resentful toward women (both online and in real life), thus behaving in ways likely to put women on the defensive.


Almost everyone is against sexual harassment at least in theory. The points of contention revolve around how seriously to take it, what to do about it, and what causes/enables it. Feminist concern about sexual harassment is not new, but it has intensified within the past several years, especially since the rise of Trump. Anti-feminist dismissals of concerns about sexual harassment have also intensified, at least to some extent, which is why you might feel that "back in the 90-s, I would have been on the same page with everyone else," but no longer.