I wish I had female friends

Post Reply New Topic

Saying that you don't like someone is often seen as socially inappropriate. Pretending to like someone you actually don't is, to my understanding, a social rule that is to be followed in certain situations.

Both a and b, I'd say. Movements for women's rights existed even before 90s, but got louder then and in 2000s. Also, in the late 90s you were a teen or in your early twenties. People of that age tend to get more attention from the opposite sex than older people do. Also, you've mentioned that you tend to look a little messy, but was that the case also in the 90s? If not then that's probably another reason. And of course, like Mona said, women these days could simply be more cautious of men they don't know than they were in the 90s. That's not a bad thing; safety is important.

Both A and B are possible. Then there are C and D: they could hope that you are/will be friends or family with someone important or they're just being nice because of, again, manners.

Maybe you have "a resting b***h face?" I've heard it's common among autistic people... it means that when a person isn't really happy or angry, just neutral, they tend to look like they're annoyed, so they come across as less aproachable.

Well I suppose it's not that bad if you wouldn't leave even if you met someone more suitable, but I'd stil advice against it. I'm pretty sure that most people would be hurt if they knew that someone was with them only out of pity or a sense of responsibility... but of course, this will only hurt them if they find out the truth.
I think it's perfectly fine to date without being in love, just liking is enough, but I'd say that love is a must on both sides if a couple intends to get married and/or have kids. The exception for this would be if the couple got together for financial or other such reasons and both were on the same page about it.

Depends on the person. Some people are probably lazy, some don't care, but I think that in most cases it's about the one who doesn't listen being so convinced that he/she is right and so there's no point in listening to the other person because they are (in the person's mind) definitely wrong.

People who're rude to everyone are rare; most are rude to just some.
If you're rude to someone because you feel like they insulted you yet they don't feel that way, then they could think that
A: You're just a rude person in general
B: They've done or said something to you in the past that made you hostile towards them and you decided to act on those hostile feelings now
C: They could think that you thought something they said was rude, but they disagree and then think you're childish for getting upset about something that, in their books, was not rude.

That too, but also because if people see your social skills are bad, some might not want to be even seen with you in the fear of you embarrasing them because you don't understand some social rule that's needed in a situation you could get in to. And some might think that if they got together with you they'd have to teach you and would see that as a too bothersome or hard task.

Just because the other students see you doesn't mean they know something is wrong. And even if they do know, they could have their hands full with problems they see as bigger than yours, either their own or a friend's problems. If one has a friend and some classmate they don't really know who both have problems they might be able to help with, one will focus on the friend first without a doubt. The other one can be helped if there's enough time and energy. So, while some might really not care, for most it's probably that they do care, but there are things more important to them that need their attention, so you become secondary.

What I did wasn't really all that different from usual: I was at home (sick leave at the time, didn't have to work), my parents and little sister came over and we ate something good, I forgot what. I got presents too, from them and my old neighbour (my parents delivered it.)
However, the point is what I was thinking that day. Like I said, I was on sick leave at the time. This was because I have an uncureable condition that needed a surgery once more so that I could live. The surgery appointment was a bit over month away and, since it was a big operation, on the night of my 20th birthday I was wondering if I'd live to see my 21st or not. Not exactly what most people have in mind when they turn 20.
The reason I'm bringing this up is because that, in my every day life, people can't tell I have such a serious condition. Sure, by my 20th birthday my condition had gotten to the point that people probably saw that something was wrong, but normally one can't see this, or at least not the fact that this is life threatening. The point is that, out of the people around you, some definitely have serious problems that you don't know of. Some might have the same condition that I have. Or something else really serious, and worrying about that might be a reason they don't have the energy to help out other people. People's problems can't always be seen by outsiders, so when you see someone who's doing well but does nothing to help you, you might get bitter, but you shouldn't because you can't be sure that they're really doing better than you. Sure, they might have a wonderful relationship and nice friends, but they might be in the danger of dying soon etc.

^ See the above. Are you sure those people didn't have enough with their own problems? If someone has serious problems in their lives that they use all their energy to solve then they don't need to feel quilty about not helping someone else. Do you ever ask people what you could do for them?

Ah okay, the extremes are understandable, though at least for me it wouldn't be about their position in the society's eyes but the practicality of the situation and if what makes them be "lower class" could directly be harmful to me or others. For examble, drug addicts are criminals here (because drugs are illegal), and I wouldn't want to date a criminal. Not worth the trouble it could bring.

Sometimes it's considered more proper to lie than to tell the truth. That's called telling "white" lies.

I don't think that they assume that. It's just that they don't want to bother with someone they see as a jerk.

Like I mentioned earlier, in my case I was making the fact that I like someone a point of argument -- and the other person was getting tired of that argument. So that can't be construed as my trying to be polite.

Now, I remember you already answered this before and you said that in this case they might think I was trying to be rude on purpose and you said that some people have rudeness as their goal. But then when I wondered how is it possible to have rudeness as the goal, you said the following:



If its A then, at least in my case, it would be because I find social rules less important than getting my way. But thats not the same as having rudeness as a goal as you put it. So why would people who, in fact, have rudeness as their goal, be rude to everyone indistinguishably? Wouldn't they be damaging their own life that way?

If its B then that makes sense, thats what I do a lot.

If its C, I do that too -- but isn't this an example of miscommunication? And, if so, wouldn't it be worth it to try to talk it over so that I understand what their intentions were?



Yeah, I am thinking about this too. I guess I feel bad I missed out on what I could have had in my 20-s, thats why I wish to have it now.



Back then I lived with my mom so she probably made sure I wasn't messy (for example she reminded me to tuck in my shirt, tie my shoes, cut my nails, etc).

But, at the same time, my mom is the one who likes when my hair is long enough to cover my ears, which is what causes it to be messy.

So I am guessing that her doing other things "right" compensated for the hair thing. I mean, even with the hair, when I come visit her she agrees my hair is messy -- but she doesn't think it has to do with its length she thinks it has to do with the fact that I don't wash it, while everyone else says its the length. From my mom's perspective, when I come visit her my hair is messy but when she has me wash it its no longer messy. I don't know whether others would agree with her since they never seen me at the time when I visit my mom.

In any case, the time when others began to be hostile towards me coincided with the time when I left my mom's place.



As far as C, it makes sense. As far as D, how does it relate to the "difference" between then and now? Is it that, due to A, B, and C, the majority of people in the past were nicer and this, in turn, "created" D, since the manners tell you to be like most people?



Yeah, that is what people tend to say when I ask this question.



Yeah, this is a very difficult situation. It is interesting that you brought up a possibility that we both know we are not in love. My first reaction is that I wouldn't like it even if the other person agreed to it. I guess to me, even if I don't love the other person, I want to have her think that I love her and I want her to love me as well: as long as we "say" to each other that we love each other, what goes on inside my head isn't tangible so I can pretend it doesn't exist, but if we openly admit that we don't love each other then I can no longer deny it.

I guess there is one big exception to this one. If we were to say to each other that we don't love each other but we are working towards developing of love, then yes I would agree to that. In fact, that is pretty much what I am asking for when I ask a woman to give me a second chance.

But now that I think about it, I am probably not the only person who would use the word love to mean something else, others probably do that too. I mean people date each other all the time yet true love is a pretty rare thing. So I guess maybe its a bit similar to "emperor has no clothes": everyone knows that the word love doesn't always mean love, but as long as they don't verbalize it they feel they are secure in their relationships. At least that is my mindset.



Thats exactly how I feel: that some feel so convinced that they are right that it doesn't worth checking. But what puzzles me is WHY are they so convinced? Remember we talked about the choice of two "absurd" phenomena. So this should imply that they are REALLY missing something, but if they miss something so badly, how can they be so convinced that they are right?

Remember you asked me whether I had encountered people that didn't know something that I found absurd not to konw, and I mentioned a guy at the subway who didn't know what "graduate student" is, which made me really angry at him. Well, in his case, I am "not" convinced in terms of what goes on in his mind. If you ask me "did he in fact not know what it means or did he know and pretended that he didn't", I have no idea which one it is. And, in fact, I really wanted to know the answer -- being mad at him only made me want to know the answer even more. Thats why I don't understand why others assume that they know the answer and are so sure of that answer that they don't bother double checking. I mean, that is completely different from my reaction to that guy. In my case being angry makes me feel like I don't know why others did what they did and I would like to find out why. But in case of other people, being angry means they think they are sure why the other person did what they did so they don't want to bother taking about it. In both cases there is anger, but the reaction towards anger is completely different.



I am really sorry you have that disease. I am new to this forum and I didn't have much time to read the posts other than my own. So can you let me know what kind of disease you have? Of course I don't want to hurt your privacy so you can PM me about it if you are more comfortable talking about it this way. Or if it is too sensitive to talk about, I am sorry.

So how are you doing now? How is your current health compares to the one back then? Are you still in the situation where you don't know whether you will live another year, or is it better?



I guess I was assuming that, statistically speaking, the percentage of people that have deadly deseases is very small.

But I can see your point. Since most people compare themselves to themselves, whatever problem they have is large in their eyes. Just like if, one day, I were to develop deadly disease, I would think Asperger is pretty small thing. But thats not how I see it at this point. So maybe, by the same token, having Asperger makes me think that people's conflicts with their best friends are pretty small things: the good thing is they have their best friends on the first place; but to them they are large.

Incidentally, the point you brought up is something people don't seem to see when they view me as selfish. They think I am selfish because its a trait of Asperger. I disagree. I think I am selfish because having a serious problem (which can be anything -- not necesserely Asperger) makes me feel like other people's problems aren't serious enough for me to worry about. So if, instead of Asperger, I were to have some physical condition, this would have made me selfish too. But other people don't seem to get it.



Good point. This is what my mom asks me too, although in a different context. So my former thesis advisor procrastinates with editting my papers and my mom sometimes suggest that I should ask him what I can do for him (which would most likely mean help him in one of his papers) and then he would be more willing to edit mine. I never actually followed my moms' advice since it seems like he just ignores my emails so even if I did ask him he would ignore that question too. But then again, I never know until I try.

But in any case, the context is somewhat different. You were saying it in the context that other people might have serious problems I am unaware of, and my mom was telling me in the context of more general give-and-take. But perhaps there is deeper connection between those two things.



I agree with this reason too.

Its really noble of you not to care about prestige.

Most people do, and that is what hurts me: they probably reject me because their friends wouldn't like me. And this particular reason for rejection is one of the most hurtful ones since it implies self perpetuating cycle that being unpopular keeps me unpopular. Plus also it makes being unpopular hurt all the more since it would feel like "if they don't even want to be WITH someone who is unpopular, how much worse it is for me when I am in fact that person".



But, in the example with a candle, I didn't simply say I liked its smell to be polite. I was pushing the issue by insisting she puts the candle back on so that I can "prove" to her I, indeed, like its smell. So its a lot more than just trying to be polite. So then why did it take me few days to get her to put back a candle?




I think we started off discussing whether or not I am perceived as "undatable" and ended up with discussion of whether or not I am perceived as a jerk. That is what lead me to ask whether the two are synonymous in people's minds and, if so, why. So let me remind you of how the discussion went:

I was talking about baptist girl who was surprised that I had a girlfriend and when I asked her why was she surprised she said it was because I never talk about her. And then there was an adventist girl who did the opposite: I tried to talk to her about ex-s but she ignored my attempts to talk about this topic and changed the subject. So I was wondering whether both of those girls simply assumed I never dated anyone because I looked undatable. And then we had the following conversation:

ME: Or could it be that the REAL reason is that both girls assume I am undatable -- which would explain both of their behavior?

YOU: I think that, to many NTs, there's some kind of behavior that comes off as uninterested in these kind of things... or something.

ME: Like what are some examples of it?

YOU: 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.

ME: 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?

YOU: 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.

ME: 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?

YOU: I don't think that they assume that. It's just that they don't want to bother with someone they see as a jerk.

So, in light of this conversation, are you saying those two girls perceived me as a "jerk"? I mean, this seems unlikely, given that they didn't simply end contact with me. Or are you saying they thought I was a "jerk" in the ways that they could tolerate -- yet it was bad enough for them to jump to a conclusion I never dated?

To answer your question which specific places in those states I been to, in California it was Berkeley, in Minnesota it was Minneapolis, in Michigan it was Ann Arbor, in Mississippi it was Oxford and in New Mexico it is Albuquerque.

But in any case, I am confused as to why you are assuming liberal places are more friendly than concervative ones. I mean, I was always assuming it depends in terms of friendly "towards" whom. If you are talking about blacks or gays then yes, liberal places are more friendly. But if you are talking about Whites and Christians then conservative places are more friendly. So the big question is: why would people place "nerdiness" in the former category rather than the latter? You told me in a different thread that Christians don't tend to be nerds. But you missed the opposite factor, that blacks don't tend to be nerds either. So should liberal be nerd-friendly (since nerds are typically atheists) or should conservatives be nerd-friendly (since nerds are typically White)? Why is it you say the former takes place rather than the latter? Especially since "nerds tend to be atheists" isn't even applicable in my case, given that I am a Christian?

Speaking of nerds being atheists, there is a different level of questions one can ask: namely, why is it the case on the first place? I mean things like being a biblical scholar or abstaining from sex seem like quite nerdy things to do. And much of Jesus' teachings was focused on denouncing people that worry too much about social approval. So why did it happen in the US that nerds are mostly atheist?

Also since you said "ditto for Minnesota", how would that fit into your liberal/conservative theory? I mean, Minnesota vote Democrat in most elections.



Thats an interesting read. But how would you apply this theory to gun control? At least in the US, liberals are in favor of gun control while conservatives are opposed to it. Now, if you say that "conservative" position is "more fearful" one, you would be lead to saying that "more fearful people are opposed to gun control" which would imply "opposition to gun control makes us safer" -- thus backing republican position. But if you want to stay neutral and don't back either democrate or republican side, then you would have to say "both sides want us to be more safe, they are just in disagreement as to what would make us more safe". But if both of them, in their minds, want us to be more safe, then how can you label one as more fearful than the other?

And also, apart from mentioning fear, that article also mentioned "disgust": it says conservatives are more prone to disgust than liberals. But, if so, how would you explain the fact that liberals are the ones that are "disgusted" by someone not being politically correct, while conservatives are just fine with it? To me it seems like the issue is what topic. When it comes to the violation of Christian values, conservatives would be more disgusted; when it comes to violation of political correctness then liberals would be more disgusted. Are you sure that study was unbiased? In other words, when they checked the threshold for disgust were they staying in a neutral territory or were they focusing on the areas where conservatives are "known" to be more easily disgusted?

But, setting those questions aside, my third long-term ex seems to be a good example of a conservative that is prone to fear. She was raised in a southern baptist family and, despite being in her 30-s, was still staying with her parents. Her plans were to remain in that village even after she marries -- although they had a house in mind separate from her parents house as to where she would be living. But in her case my nerdiness happened to be an advantage. When I complained about Asperger she didn't see anything wrong, probably because to her lack of friends is totally normal. On the other hand, when my mom wanted me to stay a bit longer because of the visit of landlords granddaughter she immediately suspected me of cheating and, similarly, when some people invited me to a party she thought it was immoral too since they drank (even though I didn't). I was in a relationship with her for two years, and I had only two such occasions in two years which by most people's standards is very little -- but to her it was too much. So I guess, in her case, having Asperger is a good thing. But then again, who knows. Maybe people without Asperger can "frame" it in a way that won't raise suspicion?



But that assumes that their conservative views are "caused" by fear. But if we talk about conservative states, such as Mississippi, then its not caused by fear but, instead, it is caused by the whole state being conservative. So how is fear relevant then? Is it that

a) The reason the state of Mississippi is conservative is because the state of Mississippi is fearful, so the girl in question learned being fearful and being conservative in parallel -- both by observing others and/or her parents

or

b) Its not true that fear produces conservative values but it is the opposite: conservative values produce fear. But, if so, can you explain the mechanism of this?



That is interesting. Logically, it seems like in order to follow someone as a role model people have to agree with that person in some other areas. So if people in liberal states think Trump is mini-Hitler, why would they follow Trump as a role model any more than they would follow Hitler as a role model? Or are you saying it has more practical angle to this: even though they disagree with Trump, they think the police will less likely prosecute them since Trump is in charge?

Last edited by QFT on 17 Jul 2019, 3:15 am, edited 2 times in total.

I think this one thing we can't pin on Trump. Women have been getting pickier over a number of years as they have got into the job market and found they don't need to rely on men anymore.

Frankly speaking I find at my age I also find it equally difficult to make male friends...everyone is too busy

That won't answer the question about 90s compared to now, since in the 90s they were in the job market just as much.



If everyone was too busy I won't be complaining. My complaint is that I see people socializing with each other just not with me.

Or are you saying they aren't too busy to socialize they are "only" too busy to second-guess their first impressions?

It takes a lot of effort/time that you have to invest in maintaining friendships. I have no problem making acquaintances.

So one would think. But it would appear that your experience demonstrates that the more liberal and cosmopolitan places are much friendlier to you too, even though you are conservative.

Why would that be? Perhaps because places dominated by white conservative Christians tend to be all-around ultra-conformist in lots of ways, including ways that you aren't even fully aware of due to being autistic. Hence, as an autistic person, you are likely to be accepted only in more cosmopolitan, socially tolerant places -- and such places tend to be liberal/progressive, of course, what else would they be?


Black nerds do exist, of course, as do Christian nerds, although I am under the impression that the latter have gotten scarcer during my lifetime.

Berkeley is nerd-friendly because it is the home of the University of California in Berkeley, one of the most prestigious universities in the U.S.A. U of C Berkeley and nearby Stanford are pretty much the West Coast's nearest equivalent of Harvard, Yale, and MIT.

Liberals/progressives and conservatives both may or may not be nerd-friendly. How nerd-friendly they are is likely to be related to other aspects of the local culture, such as how dominated said local culture is by a nearby university and how big and/or prestigious that university is.


I would expect it to be not quite as nerd-friendly and not quite as tolerant of oddballs as Berkeley, but still much friendlier to oddballs than the more conservative parts of the country.


I see the gun control issue as a rural vs. urban thing, not a conservative vs. liberal thing per se. Gun ownership rights are a "conservative" issue only because rural places tend also to be conservative. Places that are rural yet liberal/progressive, such as Vermont, also tend to be pro-gun. See this article about Bernie Sanders' position on gun control, for example. On the other hand, here in New York City, the conservative-leaning New York Post tends to support gun control (e.g. in this editorial), as does the local police union.


The "disgust" in this case is more like feeling morally outraged by an injustice than like feeling grossed out. Based on the examples in the above-linked article, it would appear that conservatives are more easily "disgusted" in the sense of feeling grossed out, which is closer to the essence of what the word "disgust" usually means.


No, I'm not really in a position to comment on the quality of the research.


Not necessarily. The existence of a correlation between conservativism and fear does not prove that one causes the other, or, if so, which one causes which. They could be mutually reinforcing, and/or they could both be caused by yet a third factor.


I don't know, but I would suspect that conservativism and fear would both tend to be mutually reinforcing in many (not all) people. As for explaining a possible mechanism of this, maybe later. I need to get to sleep soon.


Not all people in "liberal states" feel that way. States don't vote unanimously, after all, even though their electoral college votes end up being unanimous in most cases.


The latter is a possibility. Also, some are themselves Trump supporters. But I think the main effect here is purely social. If the President of the United States can get away with harassing women, then it becomes less taboo for men to harass women.

To many people putting getting one's way before basic social rules is rude.
As for people who are rude to everyone, yes, it will damage their lives. Why they still do it, I don't know. The only explanation I can come up with that would somewhat make sense is that they think their life is already ruined, so they're bitter and want to hurt other people as much as possible, too.
Yes, that tends to be the case with C, but people may think that you won't understand what they're trying to say anyway, either because they know they're bad at explaining or think that you just won't get it (especially if they know about your asperger) and don't want to waste their time for it.

It could be that people started to become more hostile as you aged since your behaviour was no longer as acceptable for someone your age, but if it matches the time you left your mom's place then you're probably right: she must've taken care of your appearance enough that it didn't drive people away... or perhaps it's a compination of both.

As far as I know, D has always existed to some extense. That's what manners are about... except in cultures where you don't need to be polite to people who are of lower cast, but as far as I know, people are expected to be polite to others of their own cast, too.

So you'd be comfortable with pretending to love the other as long as she doesn't find out and she actually loves you? If you're fine with being with someone who you don't actually love, how can you be sure that they love you even if they say so? They could just be thinking the same as you.
I agree with you on the second part; it's fine to be in a relationship with someone you don't love and who doesn't love you if falling in love with each other is something you aim for. However, isn't that how relationships always work? People don't usually fall in love at first sight, it builds up. Also, I wouldn't call this a second chance. In fact, I'd say this is the first chance. If someone is in love with you and stops being in love with you but agrees to make effort and try to love you again, that's a second chance. However, that type of second chances are probably rare unless the pair is already married and/or has kids since breaking up would take a lot more work than leaving a casual relationship would.
To me love is love; I wouldn't use the word of something or someone I don't really love. I can go on dates and even start a relationship with someone I simply like a lot, but for marriage or having kids (on purpose), I would have to love the man and be convinced that he also loves me.

But if it's not absurd to them, then it makes sense that they can be really convinced and don't bother checking, right?

I prefer not to go in to too much details on this forum, partly because my condition is rare so someone who knows me might realize it's me from it if they read this stuff... but in any case, "disease" is a bit of a wrong word; it's more like a deformity. What makes it so dangerous is the fact that it's in my brains.
I'm doing fine now, considering my condition. While it's always possible that things will suddenly go very wrong tomorrow or next week, it's unlikely. The problems tend to take longer to build up and I'll notice when they do, so I'll probably start worrying more again when that happens but for now, everything's fine save for occasional painfull days, but rest usually fixes that. I'm able to live on my own and am able to work (though this particular disability prevents me from doing any too physical work for long periods of time, so it seriously limits what I can do for a living), so it's not that easy to realize I'm like this. I have some physcial limitations in my everyday life, but since I've learned to live with them from early age, they aren't that bothersome and I often forget that I'm abnormal in that sense unless I'm with someone who isn't and is doing something I'd like to do too but can't.

Yes, you are right about the statistics. The point is that you can't know which of the people around you belong to that small unfortunate part and which ones don't. And even if someone doesn't belong to it themselves, they could have a loved one that does, in fact the chances of that being the case are a lot higher since lot of people can have the same loved one who has an unfortunate condition like that.
I tend to compare problems caused to me by my autism and problems caused to me by physical disability, so problems caused by the former don't probably seem as big to me as they do to most autistic people without serious physical conditions. The way I see it is that while autism makes getting friends and starting a family harder, I could still start over when I mess up, but if my physical disability decides that nope, time to go, then that's that. There's no turning back from that one, so autism really feels small in comparison.
Your examble of having no friends vs. having trouble with friends is something I've seen quite a bit here. There was this one time not too long ago that one woman was talking about her husband treating her badly, yet some users just told her to be happy that she has one in the first place and just work it out. I don't think that's okay; if one thinks their problems are a lot bigger than someone else's they have the right to think so, but it's not okay to belittle the other one's problems because of it. They have the right to express their pain just as much as those who consider they have it worse do.
So you think that when people call you selfish they aren't wrong, but that the reason they think you're selfish is a wrong one? Sorry to say this, but I don't think that matters to most people. As far as I know, people don't like it if someone's selfish no matter what it was that made them that way.

There is. Even if someone does have a serious health problem or something, the chances that you can actually help with that directly are extremely low. However, asking what you could do for them and then actually doing it if you're able to is the best proof there is that you care about that person. This goes with both big and small problems. Even if it's a small thing that the person could do themselves, it's nice to have someone helping or doing it for them from time to time. If we're talking about someone you know well and know something that you could do to help them out, you can just go and do it without asking. They'll be happy that they didn't even have to ask.

Not sure about the candle thing... maybe she didn't want to admit that she had assumed wrong? Dunno.

My bad, I can get sidetracked easily if it isn't fixed right away. But yes, they could have seen you as a too much of a jerk to be datable, but not enough of a jerk to not be friends with you... in that sense, "jerk" probably isn't a fitting word. Maybe it really isn't about that but about something being "off" so much that they couldn't imagine themselves or someone else dating you?

Well, in 2014 I went to Mississippi and then, in 2016, I moved to New Mexico. New Mexico votes democrat, yet I found that they were even more hostile towards me than they were in Mississippi. Although maybe its the case because the specific place in New Mexico where I am at -- Albuquerque -- has a lot of crime, so people have their guard up. On the other hand, the specific place in Mississippi I was at -- Oxford -- had very little crime. And it wasn't because it was Mississippi but rather because it was a small college town surrounded by a lot of forest. So forest was probably protecting it from all the crime that might have taken place elsewhere, which is why people were more relaxed.

One aspect in which Mississippi seemed to be THE friendliest (even friendlier than Berkeley) is that strangers were offering me a ride when they saw I had no car. But I guess maybe its an assumption on my part that it is a gesture of friendship -- maybe to them its just something they "do" without a lot of meaning behind it -- I mean none of them tried to exchange phone number with me or somehow extend the interaction beyond offering me the ride. I guess the kind of hospitality that I found to be "bad" were those two incidents where people at church offered me money -- so I confronted them as to why they thought I was homeless and they denied it and said they were just trying to be nice, but it was hard to believe so I ended up starting fights over it. Yet, at the same time, I didn't get offended at them giving me a ride: on the contrary I really liked it. But maybe its because "to me" not having a car is normal (I never learned to drive just cause I didn't have time) while having others give me money isn't, since thats not something I ever done. But maybe to others, with different kind of life experiences, the two are the same. So maybe it "is" considered "bad" from their perspective that I actually took their ride and it was me thinking it was "good"? I hathve no evidence in is direction by the way, I am just speculating.

As far as my saying they were hostile towards me ever since 2014, I was more referring to their body language that seemed to suggest "stay away". But now that I think about it, perhaps I can't really make "even comparison" between Minnesota and, say, Mississippi. For one thing, in Minnesota I was more focused on dating sites while in Mississippi I was more focused on face to face interactions. As far as face to face interaction goes, in Minnesota I was overfocusing on the one specific Jewish club I went to, while in Mississippi my focus was spread between three places -- plus I also paid attention to cashiers, waitresses, how people look at me when I walk down the street. So who knows maybe in Minnesota people walking down the street were just as hostile but I didn't know it since my focus was elsewhere? On the flip side, I remember in Minnesota there was that one cashier who kept trying to chat me up and whom I was ignoring since I was too busy obsessing about Jewish club and dating sites. Well, in Mississippi I "wish" some cashier were to try to chat me up, but that wasn't happening. I guess that's what I mean that people were friendlier to me in Minnesota: I got more of those kinds of gestures from "unexpected" sources that I ignored. As far as comparing respective clubs I went to in those two states, its hard to compare which was more hostile, I felt ostracized in all of them.

One thing I did notice though is that, ever since 2014, people act like they don't understand my accent. I don't know whether they truly don't understand it or whether its just their way of showing their disgust of me. But they



Well, I am not necesserely a conservative, just like I am not a liberal either. I more go issue by issue, and whatever issue I look at, I often see that it would be a lot more logically consistent for some "liberal" views to go together with some "conservative" ones -- and I am puzzled why they don't. For example, being sorry for innocent embryos being killed and being sorry for innocent animals being killed seem to go side by side, yet conservatives do the former and liberals do the latter. The fact that attempting to accomodate black students tends to slow down US education would make one think that people that make education higher priority would be opposed to affirmative action. But it is the opposite: liberals care more about education "and" they support affirmative action, too. Wanting the government to legislate biblical values would imply opposition to gay marriage "and" helping the poor (Jesus said to help the poor). Yet conservatives want to do the former while liberals want to do the latter. And I can go on and on.

To me it sort of seems like both Republicans and Democrats just blindly following their fold. I wish this was not the case: in fact it was interesting when you shown me the psychological study on what is behind those views. I really wish I knew some logical reason why liberal views go together and conservative ones go together. But, as of now, I don't really see one. Thats why I personally tend to favor third parties since this would break this sheeple mentality. But then again, if I look at physics, then I find that even people working in really obscure areas of physics tend to follow their leader. I was thinking it wouldn't be the case, which is why I decided to go into those obscure areas so that, presumably, I would be more creative -- but after working there for few years I found that it was. So I dunno, maybe in politics it is similar: I wouldn't know since I haven't actually spent any time participating in the meetings those third parties hold.

In any case, as far as how I actually vote, I only wanted twice: in 2008 and in 2016. Both times I was wishing to vote third party yet ended up voting Republican. In 2008 I basically voted "against Obama". In 2012 I couldn't vote since I was in India. In 2016 I voted for Trump because, even though he was Republican, he acted a lot more like a third party candidate given his unconventional ideas. So to me he felt more like "the only third party candidate that has a chance of actually winning". Apart from that, he was also pro-Russia -- and as you recall I am from Russia -- so I didn't want to miss that kind of opportunity, given though it is so rare. Also, his promise to move Israeli capital to Jerusalem felt really exicting too since I am Jewish. And also the idea of building the wall seemed inspiring not from the point of view of solving crime problem but more from the point of view "it looks like an impossible task, yet he is sure he will make it, so will he actually make it or not, and what excuse would he come up with if he fails". I would have never found it out if he didn't win. Nevertheless, I was still torn between Trump and Gary Johnson: after all, Gary Johnson is "officially" a third party candidate not just "effectively". So it was really last minute decision to vote for Trump. Literally 5 minutes before I voted I was at the student store and heard the news that Trump is ahead, so this motivated me to vote for him -- I was almost about to vote for Gary Johnston before I was at that store. Be it as it may, if the election was a month earlier I would have voted for Hillary because I was shocked by his tapes, and the vote for Hillary would have been the only effective vote "against Trump" -- but that month gave me enough time to sort of calm down about that, which is why I didn't end up voting for her. I think if it would be Trump versus Bernie next election, I might likely vote for Bernie since he also feels like a third party candidate just in a vastly different way so it would be interesting to see what would happen if he wins. But I am not sure what I will actually do, I will have to wait and see.

The other thing to take into account is that not all of my views would actually affect the way I vote. For example, I always wanted to date a girl that is a mathematician or a physicist, preferably in graduate school or higher -- and, indeed, I was pushing the girls I did date to go to graduate school (unsuccessfully). This type of attitude is liberal, since conservatives tend to believe in gender roles and would say those are "male" professions. One would "assume" its outdated -- but I actually heard it mentioned, pertaining to modern men, that a lot of them don't like to date successful women. I find it stupid: to me, the more successful a woman I date, the better, since I measure my own worth by the woman I date -- so it seems like those guys are shooting themselves in the foot. In any case, what I was trying to say is that I am clearly liberal when it comes to this particular issue. But, at the same time, it wouldn't affect the way I vote: after all none of the candidates are trying to legislate what kind of men can date what kind of women. So I guess out of the views that I hold the ones that came up on a table during those particular elections were the ones that made me vote Republican. I don't know if it is a coincidence or a pattern since I only voted twice.

As far as the views that I have that allign with Republicans, the interesting thing to observe is that I became Christian only at the age of 22, yet I held those views all my life. As far as taxes go, I remember how, back in Russia, I enjoyed going to the forest and thinking how its so refreshing that nobody on earth know where I am. When my family moved to the US (I was 14 at the time) my dad was explaining to me the way US economy works. And when he explained the "private property" to me, I thought "wow its so cool, people can make those deals with each other and nobody else knows what they are doing since those transactions are private; they can do it in the middle of a forest if they like!" But when he explained taxes to me, then it was really disappointing. The very first question I had is this: how come people don't lie on their tax returns? Does it mean that the government sees EVERYTHING? But what if they were to meet somewhere in the forest and do the transaction there? Why would the government see that? Does it mean that the government sees what they do in the forest? But, if so, then even if I go to the forest -- without doing any transactions -- the governemnt would see every step I am making. So I can't ever go to any place where nobody truly sees me and where I can relax. Now, Clinton was president at the time, and he was a democrate. So I had that daydream "I wish republican candidate were to win the next electin, lets hope he will abolish all taxes, and then I will be able to go to the forest and truly relax".

Incidentally, that was the reason why I was an atheist back then. I didn't like the idea of God that sees me "everywhere" I go and from whom I can't really hide. So its rather ironic that I was against taxes for the same exact reason that I was atheist -- given that Christians are the ones that are Republicans and, therefore, oppose taxes. Now, as a Christian, I can't really oppose taxes any more since Bible says to pay taxes (Romans 13:6). I "am" opposed to big government though -- and yes, this time I am opposed to it for Christian reasons -- namely, I am afraid of the coming of the antichrist and since antichrist would be an epitome of the big governement, in order to delay his coming the government should be as small as possible. So I guess this would also "imply" as low taxes as possible -- but I can't exactly say I want taxes to be abolished altogether, the way I was saying back in my atheist days.

The other example of an issue where I was conservative my whole life is the one of abortion: I am opposed to it because I see it as murder. But thats how I saw it back when I was an atheist too, and my views didn't change on this one. Quite frankly, it puzzles me why others see it as a Christian issue. The only connection to Christianity that I see is that "don't kill" is one of the ten commandments. But since, in the current society, atheists believe in "don't kill" every bit as much as Christians, its hard to see that connection. Here is a hypothetical scenario where I "would" agree there is a connection. Suppose we live in the society that is akin to 19-th century in a sense that we had duals and akin to 20-th century in a sense that we had lots of atheists. Furthermore, suppose that atheists are the ones doing duals with each other while Christians are objecting to them on the basis of "don't kill". In this context, yes, I would see abortion as a Christian issue. Christians believe in "don't kill", so they are opposed both to duals "and" abortion. But thats not what we see today. Today we see that when it comes to every other murder, both Christians and atheists are equally opposed to it; yet with abortion its just Christians that oppose it, thats why it makes no sense.



But if you look at Trump, he is very much anti-conformist yet he is a Republican.

I guess between Democrats and Republicans I have hard time seeing one party as being "more conformist" than the other, since they are both dominating parties and their memberships are probably comparable (as evident by about the same number of Republican candidates as Democrate ones winning elections). To me, it seems like third parties are the ones that are non-conformist. And among third parties there are both left-leaning ones (such as Green Party) and right leaning ones (such as Tea Party).

But maybe I am missing something. If so, please explain what am I missing.



But by not being aware of things due to autism I can piss off liberals too. Here is an example of this. So back when I just graduated high school, I was taking summer English class at the community college, and my mom found a tutor for me to edit my essays. Anyway, I was asked to pick a controversial topic, and write an essay persuading people of my view. So I picked a topic about the validity of IQ tests. In the process of analyzing several points it touches upon, I also happened to talk about the issue of race and IQ, and I ran into a paper that argued that blacks have smaller brain and lower IQ, I thought it is reasonable argument, so I utilized it. But then the tutor got really mad at me and complained to my mom and she got mad at me too, but I was surprised they were mad. Because you see, I didn't even know that the specific aspect of it -- pertaining to black people -- is the exact thing you would be called racist for. Yes I knew there is such a thing as racism, but I didn't know it was racist to believe in one theory over the other. I thought being racist just meant to say "blacks are bad" (whatever that means) and I wasn't saying it in my essay. So clearly this has to do with my autism. I mean if you take an NT -- regardless of their political leanings -- they are aware of the fact that "some people" would see it as racist. Yes, they can strongly disagree with them, but at least they know those people exist -- well, I dind't know it, until I was confronted by my mom. Apart from that, people that "actually" hold that view probably held it for some considerable time. But in my case I didn't have any view at all until I was supposed to write that essay. I just did the literature search and came up with the view as I went along: in fact I sort of went back and forth between two views before I finally decided what position to take. Yet nobody would believe me since they aren't autistic. So this example illustrates how autistics can piss off liberals, not just conservatives.



Well, like I pointed out with the above example, there are ways to piss off liberals by being autistic just like there are ways to piss of conservatives. So how do you know that on the balance I would piss off the conservatives more?



Of course they exist: given really large population, just about anything you can think of would exist. But I am talking about statistics. Statistically, both black nerds and Christian nerds are scarce. Or are you saying Christian nerds are even more rare than black nerds? If so, why is that?

By the way, if you study the Bible seriously, its a pretty nerdy thing to do, since a lot of verses are pretty difficult to interpret, so there are a lot of puzzles -- thats one thing that draws me to the Bible by the way. Thats why its so surprising why there are no Christian nerds.



Well, in the other thread you cited Berkeley as a nerd-friendly place, but you didn't cite Palo Alto or Pasadena despite them being homes to Stanford and Cal Tech. So it got to be more than just that. Although I do see why having a top university would be one of the factors.

By the way, here is a related question. How come the top universities are concentrated in liberal states? I mean if you compare US to Russia you find the opposite situation. Russia has better education than the US, and, AT THE SAME TIME, Russia is more conservative than US, too. And this makes sense: Russia simply has higher standards on performance, which includes both academic performance as well as moral performance. But if you compare different states of the US to each other, you see the opposite situation. The states that place higher standards on the academic performance are the exact states that place lower standards on moral performance, which I find kinda puzzling.



But I noticed you said "ditto" for Minnesota yet you wanted to know more about the specific place when it comes to Michigan. So are you saying Minnesota is less friendly than Michigan. If so, why?

I mean, in the last election, Michigan voted Republican and Minnesota democrat. But I guess last election shouldn't count since it was more of an anomaly. But when it comes to most of the elections prior to that, then both Minnesota and Michigan voted democrat, weren't they? So why are they different when it comes to friendliness?



Thank you for giving me those two examples, that really shows a different perspective when it comes to this.

So how do you explain why urban places are more liberal and rural places are more conservative?



So do you think conservatives are less likely to support blacks because they are "grossed out" by "some" blacks that have very poor hygine? Even though there are blacks whose hygine is just fine, the conservatives can't get passed the few with bad hygine that "grossed them out" and thats why they ended up opposing blacks altogether?



I know not all people in any given location vote the same way. In fact there are stats that show that in many cases the split is something like 60/40 and this even includes places like California. But what I was trying to get at is statistical correlation. In conservative states, the proportion of people that vote for Trump is higher. Out of people that vote for Trump, the proportion of those that would use him as a role model is higher as well. Thats why I would expect that conservative states would be more influenced by his example of harassing women than liberal states would.

The context in which I brought it up was the following. We had the following conversation:

YOU: I think it's a matter of balance; a relationship (a serious one at least) should have a healthy amount of both logic and emotion. However, if a pair greatly disagrees on how much logic is needed, then the one who wants more logic than the other comes off as too logic centered and cold.

ME: And if they do assume I am "cold" about something, how would they explain why bother talking about it?

YOU: As for why you would bother talking about it even if you don't care... because it's polite?

ME: 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?

YOU: 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?

ME: 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.

YOU: 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.

So the reason I was contrasting "putting my needs above social rules" with "being rude on purpose" is that you mentioned rudeness as being a goal in the above conversation. So I can make a point that in my particular case rudeness isn't a goal its just something I "allow" to happen. Now, if rudeness isn't a goal, then I am back with the earlier question I asked in the above conversation. If I don't care about something, why would I push an issue? You can't say I do it "to be rude" (since rudeness isn't a goal) so what "would be" the purpose of my pushing the issue? Logically, it would have to be the fact that I care about it -- and if I care then I can say "well I care so much that I allow myself to be rude just so that I can talk about it". But others assume I don't care: they say I am cold. Well, if I don't care, then why "would" I be pushing it -- unless I, in fact, make rudeness a goal. But if rudeness is a goal, then I am back with more recent questions: why would I make it a goal to be rude to everyone I meet, if it would ruin my life?



I do feel my life is ruined, but I want to grasp at the straws and make it work. That "grasping at the straws" thing is what causes me to be rude -- and this has nothing to do with making things as bad as possible for others.



But that is an "assumption" they are making thats not entirely correct. If you look at people in this board, a lot of them get the stuff I don't get, even though they have Asperger too. The reason my "behavior" made me appear as if I won't get anything is that -- as you mentioned earlier -- I got multiple chances and blew all of them. But, like I said, the reason this happened is because the "hints" I was given that my behavior wasn't welcome were too subtle for me to see. But if I were to be given a direct explanation then yes I would understand it. So the assumption they are making is that if I can't get subtle hints I won't be able to get the direct explanation either, and thats where they are wrong.

I guess the other reason why they might think I won't get it is the conversation such as the one we are having now, where answers lead to further questions. But let me illustrate with an example how I "could have" been able to get past something like this. So, in America, the selection of which students make it to graduate school is largely based on grades. But, at least in my case, it often happened that grades didn't reflect my knowledge. Like for example I had physics tests where I knew physics but made sloppy errors in calculations. Apart from that, it doesn't make sense why they made me take classes I didn't need (what they call "breadth requirenmnetn"): why would I need to know history if I want to work in physics? I *could* have been arguing about those things and *if* I did, it probably would take a very long time to convince me. But the reason I am not arguing about them is that it doesn't affect me that much. Yes, my grades kept me from going to Harvard, but I still went to Michigan, which is a pretty good school too. Yes, it was inconvenient that I had to take classes that disracted me from physics, but I still managed just fine. So I guess if it was something similar socially, then I probably wouldn't be arguing "why am I average as opposed to most popular" even if for reasons X, Y or Z I thoguht I should be most popular or whatever. But you see, my situation is "not" that I am average but rather I am one of LEAST popular, and then I feel forced to argue. So if my grades were to keep me out of getting into any graduate school altogether, maybe I would have started arguments about their fairness too. And the other thing about grades is that I can always improve them. Like my current grades are much better than what they used to be. But with social interactions its not that simple because once the impression is made it carries onto other people (in contrast to classes where I can get a bad grade in one class and then get a good grade in another class). So part of why I am arguing is not just that I can't learn but also that I don't know how to make my life better.

If a girl were to tell me "okay I will continue to date you as long as you try to learn what it is I am trying to teach you without arguing about it" then yes I would learn it regardless of whether its logical or not -- just like I took classes irrlelevant for physics because I was told to. But when she rejects me adn doesn't give me such chance then I have no choice but argue. Indeed I can give you an example with the thrid long term ex. For some reason she felt like cuss words or using Gods name in vain is the worst thing one can do -- which I found ridiculous -- but I still tried my best to stick to it while with her, since she agreed to continue to date me if I do it. Well, eventually she broke up, perhaps because I slipped up in a couple of occasions, perhaps due to other things (she didn't tell me why she broke up) -- so after she broke up I was arguing about it all over again. Well, if she didn't break up and kept sticking around and teaching me then I wouldn't be arguing so much.



But the way manners came on the table was this:

YOU: 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.

ME: 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.

YOU: Both A and B are possible. Then there are C and D: they could hope that you are/will be friends or family with someone important or they're just being nice because of, again, manners.

So this is the context in which I asked about manners. Since we were talking about past versus present, then are you implying manners were more relevant to the past than they are now?



Are you trying to say that if I were to live in the past then the fact that there are people in the same cast as me would have guaranteed me friends, and, therefore, I wouldn't have been facing the current situation? Yes, the cast would have kept me from going up, but it would similarly kept me from going down, too?



Thats interesting that you said it. Because sometimes the girls tell me its not something I can logically convince them of, they are just not feeling it. But, from what you just said, nobody feels it from the get-go, feelings can be worked on. So maybe when they say they aren't feeling it its just an excuse? Maybe the actual situation is that they have REASONS not to work on their feelings -- yet they don't want to tell me their reasons since they know I will argue? But on my end of a line, arguing is a good thing since it would give me a chance to correct their reasons if they misunderstood something.



I guess I was thinking more of a situation when the girl was first considering dating me and then chose not to. But its true that she might not have felt anything at first either. In fact there were some girls that actually told me "well, you didn't lose anything since there were no feelings at first to begin with" but my point was "well, you were willing to date me at first but not now".



But when you date or have a relationship, aren't you using that "I love you" phrase?



So the question is why isn't it absurd? Like for example the scenario where I am presumably cold about a certain topic, yet keep arguing about it. Why isn't it absurd? Why would I waste time arguing about something I presumably don't care about?



I am glad you were able to adjust. I guess if I were in your situation I would be a lot more scared of dying than the physical limitations. Isn't it still scary that you can die any time?



Thats a good point



I completely agree with you. I wouldn't want to trade my Asperger for a deadly desease. In fact, even with things that aren't deadly. I won't trade my Asperger for blindness, either. In fact I won't even trade it for age. I wouldn't want to become an NT who is 60, but I would gladly agree to be 20 with my Asperger being twice worse. But then again, I would rather get rid of Asperger and become obese, or get rid of Asperger and have lots of conflicts with friends.



I totally agree with you. They were quite insensitive, and rude.

And, on a separate note, I am afraid of marriage. In fact thats one of the major things that broke me up with the second long-term ex: she was pushing marriage and I was too scared. Thats particularly true since, as a Christian, I beleive that divorce is a form of adultery. So "if" I were to marry someone I don't like, then this would prevent me from ever dating anyone else my whole life (which is basically one of the biggest problems Asperger can cause) and "in addition to that", I would have to keep facing that person I dislike. So yeah, its worse. I guess it would sort of feel the same as moving back to live with my mother: I would still be single and, in addition, lost my independence, too.



But didn't you say yourself that people can be selfish when they feel like the problems they have are bigger than others?

Incidentally, when I was dating my second long term ex I wasn't selfish: as I mentioned earlier, she lost lots of blood due to PCOS so she had trouble walking, I was taking care of her, and this drew us closer. Yes I told you I started to dislike her later, but that was when she was no longer as sick, and she became cranky (and that was when I was remembering the time when she was truly sick and didn't want to "betray" her by breaking up). But, back at the time when she was truly sick we were very close. In fact, when she was breaking up with me, she sarcastically told me that I should find a girl that is permanently sick, since that is the only time when I am not selfish.

The point I was trying to make is that I am not selfish when the other person's problems are bigger than mine. The reason I am selfish the "majority" of the time is that I usually see my problems as bigger.

But I guess part of it might be that others simply aren't telling me about their problems since they perceive me as selfish. I can even take that girl as an example. Right "before" she became sick, I cussed her out which caused her to be real distant for a week. Then there was Valentines when I made up for it, so we were no longer distant, and few days later she told me she was sick. Now, what would have happened if it were to take place at any other time of a year so there was no Valentines for me to make up? In this case, the two of us would have been too distant for me to see that she was sick. Yes, maybe she would mention it -- but on my end it would sound just as an excuse for the distance, which would only make me resent her even more (I hate when people make excuses) and come across as even more selfish.

Well, like I told you, thanks to the Valentines, it didn't end up that way. Valentines made us close, so then when she told me she was sick I knew it was a real sickness and not an excuse, so I was taking care of her, and so we became even closer.

So as you see, whether or not I am selfish is all situational. And a lot of it is circular. When others perceive me as selfish they treat me a certain way which in fact makes me selfish.



I guess part of it is that I feel it would be inappropriate for me to ask them. I guess part of it is cultural thing. I don't know how it is in Finland but I can give you an example that involves Russia and America. So my mom told me how a man she knows, who is originally from Russia but who is currently lives in America, offered an American woman to help carry her bag -- and she charged him with sexual harassment, since in America they don't do it. Well, I was surprised to hear that they do it in Russia, but maybe its because I left Russia when I was 14 so I was too young to notice it. I guess I would think not so much in terms of sexual harassment but more along the lines of robbery. But in any case it looks weird. I guess to me asking a stranger (regardless of whether its a male or female) what can I do to help them feels weird as well. Actually when I was in India they DID ask me what can they do to help me and I was really upset by this -- so maybe it "is" a cultural thing. If so, perhaps my mom's advice is a bit off since she is from Russia too. But then again she came to America in 1992 and I came in 1994, so she should have learned American ways by now. So perhaps in America they do ask and I just didn't see it since I don't have any friends.



So what can I do in order for people to stop assumig this about me?

Good lord! if a prerequisite to having a female friend on WP is having to read 10 pages of posts then count me out

I think I'll give up on the first one; it doesn't seem like I'd be able to explain it in a way that you can understand.

Have you considered the fact that in some cases people have explained things to you as directly as they can without being subtle, yet you still haven't gotten it and because you haven't understood you've just assumed that they'd been really subtle? This happens to me a lot; I ask people why didn't they just say so and they say that they did say so.
No choice but to argue? You do have a choice. You can choose to respect her desicion to leave you instead of questioning her decision. When a person leaves someone (in a relationship), they have a reason for it. Of course, it'd be for the best to share that reason with the one they're leaving, but they have the right to not do so if that's what they decide. An adult woman who has dated you isn't your property; she doesn't owe you an explanation. Yes, it'd be good manners and ease your future if she did tell you why things didn't work out if you don't understand it yourself, but she doesn't have to do that. She has a right to live her life without someone demanding for explanations just because she made the mistake of dating that someone.

In a way, yes. People needed to stay in the good side of the society they lived in far more than these days in order to survive, after all. Basic manners helped with that.

No, I wasn't trying to say anything like that, just that people often weren't expected to be friendly to others if those others were considered lower than them. It was to point out when manners didn't matter.

Do you mean a situation where you would like to start a relationship yet the woman doesn't? In a case like that, "not feeling it" isn't an excuse. In my opinion, it's fine to start a relationship without there being love, but not without there being at least some attraction (in romantical sense) to that other person, some kind of feeling that it might work out. I think that they mean it's that attraction that they aren't feeling.

How exactly do you define "dating?" I was under the impression that "dating" meant "being in a relationship" for a long time, but then two people here (one American, one British) told me that "dating" just means going on dates and relationship is a step up from that, the point where you no longer look at other people (unless you've agreed to a polyamoric relationship.) So if a person agrees to date you by this definition, they haven't actually promised or agreed to anything other than going on those dates you two have already gone to. Of course, if your idea of what "dating" is different then there's no wonder if you're dissapointed. In that case, it's just a matter of miscommunication.

Of course not; I don't take those words lightly. Might be just a cultural difference though; maybe saying it without meaning it is more acceptable in America than it is in here. Another option is that it's just me.

Another thing that I don't think I'll be able to explain in a way you can understand. Gonna give up on this one, too.

Of course it is, but my chances of just suddenly dropping dead aren't all that much higher than a normal person's. If it'll be this that takes my life, it'll most likely be slowly and I'll know it's coming. But I try not to think of it since it's not like that helps anything.

I don't think that saying "as a Christian" fits here; I know some divorced Christians and plenty of none divorced Christians who aren't against divorce. In fact, I only know one Christian who refuses to marry because of the fear that she might want to break up one day, but even she isn't against other people getting divorces. So I'd say it's either that branch of Christianity you belong to or you, but not Christianity as a whole since many Christians think differently.
Also, out of curioisity: what does your religion say about a widow remarrying? Is that allowed?

All I meant is that it's natural to put self first when you think your problems are bigger than those of others. Still, I think it'd be best to avoid being selfish in those situations too because one, how can you be sure that your problems are really the bigger ones and two, even if you are, what gives you the right to decide that that's a fact? You might see your problem as bigger than someone else's, but that someone else might see their problem as bigger than yours.
Example: In a story I once read, there were two orphan boys. One lost his parents as a baby and had no memory of them. He was sad and lonely. The other lost his parents as a young child too, but old enough to remember them. He could remember what it was like to have a happy family. He was also sad and lonely, but there was once a point that he hadn't been. So, who had it harder: the boy who didn't even know what it was like to have a family, or the boy who did but lost it? In the story, the boy who never had a family thinks they're alike, but the other boy disagrees. The boy who lost his family and remembers it thinks he has it harder since he had something that was once there taken away from him. Again, who had it harder? It really depends on who you ask. Some might pity the boy who never had anything more, others the one who lost everything.

I wouldn't ask a stranger if I could help, either- unless it was really obvious that I could help them with something immediately, things like holding a door open for them since their hands are full and such. Friends and people I somewhat know are okay, though in here it's a social rule to first reject the help unless you're really close with the person who asks or you really need that help and badly.

It's hard to say without actually knowing you, but since we've come to the conclusion that you might look a little messy, try fixing that. Getting some textbook knowledge about the local social rules might help too.

To QFT:

Because the conversation between you and me in this thread has wandered heavily into political and religious topics, we probably shouldn't continue it here in the "Social Skills and Making Friends" section of this board. If we continue our discussion at all, we should probably continue it in a separate new thread in "Politics, Philosophy, and Religion." What do you think?

I am not sure how to start a brand new thread on "Politics, Philosophy and Religion" since we have touched on multiple different topics. I mean I "could" start several separate threads pertaining to each of those topics, but then it wouldn't be the same conversation.

Are you suggesting I just start a thread with a very short sentence "the thread about the political/religious discussion with Mona Pereth" or something like that?

Or perhaps we can continue our conversation on PM instead?

I was thinking I would be the one to start several new threads in PPR, with links back to this thread. But, also, some of the topics we've discussed might better be discussed via PM's.

Then go ahead and start them -- but please give me the links to those topics in this thread so that I can find them more easily.



We can do both PM and public discussion in parallel like you suggested.

Just go ahead and PM me about the ones you want to discuss over PM and make posts (with links) about the ones you want to discuss publically.