TOS Reminder

Post Reply New Topic

Not all men are Pigs. Only the lucky ones.

Robert Anton Wilson suggested the adoption of the word "sombunall," a contraction of "some but not all" as a way to avoid bigoted generalization, but I don't think it's caught on widely.

You are lovable; Aspergers just speak a different language than the rest of the world; so our mission in life is to learn how to translate our ideas and words into the world's language. If you spoke Spanish in an all Finnish party, people wouldn't respond to you but it would have nothing to do with lovability

Agreed. AS is just like a language. And where is it written that people with AS have to do all the learning? Perhaps we NTs should be reaching out and also doing some learning also.

I think meeting somewhere in the middle is where a relationship finds true success...

Does "most" mean "all" to some people?

Having been a forum moderator in the past, I've learned the hard way that people are likely to misconstrue even the smallest things. This is unfortunate, but there is no way of getting around it. Forum moderators have to find a way to be impartial and unbiased. If you are in doubt of something you wish to say, it may be better not to say it; or you can find a way to say something in a manner that is less critical. I know it can sometimes be frustrating, however, it prevents further unnecessary drama. You can always look up a word that is more neutral than something that may lead to controversy.

May the moderators will find this useful, maybe not. One of the things we had in my previous company was a thread solely devoted to posts that were problematic, or that somehow violated the TOS. The moderators can then then use their judgment to determine whether or not the thread will be deleted.

For example: let's say someone finds a thread sexist. The user would post a link to that thread in this new section. The moderators would then compare it with the TOS and see if there are any violations. If it's violated, the thread would be deleted. We also had members edit their post if we found something controversial. If they refused to edit it in, say, one day, they'd get a warning (I don't know if you guys issue cards, flags (I can't remember what it's called). If it's not fixed in, say two days, the thread would be deleted.

Just a thought.

The thing is, the idea that you are unlovable makes no more sense than any of the other theories you mention.
You say it can't be your lack of money because broke men have girlfriends.
You say it can't be your weight because fatter men have girlfriends.
Why not say it can't be your personality because nastier men have girlfriends?
Do you punch women in the face? Are you a murderer? Are you a child abuser? There are men that do all those things but still have girlfriends.
However bad a man is, there's a woman with low enough standards to go out with him (and vice versa, of course). So being 'unlovable' is never the reason.
I'd guess you just have low self-esteem anyway, so this is the explanation that makes most sense to you, because it fits in with that you already think.
In which case I'm guessing that you ask them expecting to be rejected. When you're convinced you're going to fail at something, you usually manage to make it happen. Confidence is a big thing with women - that's why physically abusive men usually have no problem getting (and keeping) girlfriends, they have plenty of confidence.


I think you're right though about why a lot of people are sexist.

There are definite differences between the sexes though, which while not applying in every case, do apply on average, and quite strongly, and can certainly be so maddening at times that they do lead to some anger.

For example, while we all are capable of thinking rationally or emotionally, and there are times when anybody would use a particular mode of thinking (we'll all solve a maths problem rationally, and we'll all choose a favourite flavour of ice cream emotionally), and men and women can't be guaranteed to stick to their gender-based stereotype, men on average are more likely to think rationally, and women on average are more likely to think emotionally (at any time, including a relationship problem).

Obviously if you're coming to rational conclusions that you can state reasons for, and someone else is coming out with vague ideas that they say 'are just how they feel', that will make you annoyed, especially if it's a pattern, and you can't find a relationship where it doesn't happen! As long as these kind of statements aren't being made in anger, I think they're helpful, because they can help you to understand what's going on. Remembering that we all think emotionally sometimes is, I think, vital to Aspies understanding relationships. Remembering how irrational you're being when you choose one functionally identical food over another helps you understand many of the things that other people do.

And I've certainly met women who think more rationally - but they've always been 40yrs or older. My theory is that we're all born with unbalanced thinking - men being rational too much and women being emotional too much - and it's only as we get older that we become more balanced, and learn when to use both kinds of thinking at the appropriate times. What's important to remember is that both types of thinking are useful - neither kind is better in general, they are both better for certain applications.

Eh, I thought this was a forum for ASD/AS people??.....
Or am I alone in my belief that there is nothing wrong with generalization?..

To put it bluntly, our entire view of the world around us and how we interact with it is based on generalizations. We generalize (after having sat on many chairs) that when we see something that looks like a chair it will, in fact, be a chair and thus have certain aspects we've come to expect from chairs. ie. being able to hold the weight of a regular adult person when he/she sits on it.

Without the ability to generalize every experience would be completely new and unpredictable and we wouldn't be able to function in this world.
Sexism is just gender-specific generalization and is factually in no way different from expecting a chair to be a chair if it looks like a chair or expecting the car your friend is talking about to have 4 wheels.

Wrong generalizations aside, fact of the matter is that men and women are quite different genetically and in upbringing and thus there most definitely are aspects of their behaviour and being that one could say apply more to one gender than the other.

I find it silly that people take offence to generalization when it comes to gender-specific qualities, perks, or, more common, deficits, when generalization is all that stands between our predictible world with all its laws, norms and values and total utter chaos.
If I asked you the odds on a whale appearing out of thin air some miles above the ground your response of 'non-existent' would be a generalization just as much as me saying women tend to be more emotional than men.

I guess that's the extent of my AS mind being dominated by logic and rational though.
Apparently the ones that make these forum rules aren't as 'AS' as I am?

One thing here that baffles me--sex is a-okay, but sexual fetishes are not? I think either both should be against the TOS or neither should. That term is so hilariously broad that it discriminates against anything from a guy that likes feet a whole lot to a real sicko/pervert.

Eh, you kind of shoot your own argument in the foot by mentioning some fetishes being 'sicko/pervert'..

Frankly I believe an open attitude towards sexuality is the best course of action.
Hell I can even understand some people that actually get turned on by stuff like 2girls1cup.

The sooner we all start accepting that people have different interests the better off we would all be and quite frankly not allowing specific content (asides from disruptive personal attacking/flaming/trolling that serves no purpose) is pure and simple censorship and I am opposed to the entire notion of censorship regardless of its usage.

"The end should never justify the means"

censorship, social stigma and taboos are what keeps us from being a truly enlightened open-minded society. Quite frankly I view those things with the same distaste as I do things like the inquisitions, crusades and the holocaust.

I'm sorry, but there ARE some harmful/perverted fetishes out there, unless you somehow find child abuse/bestiality acceptable practices...

Ah, I'm sorry for the misunderstanding.
With 'fetishes' I mean sexual play between two consenting adult humans and thus excluding anything involving children or animals.
Suffice it to say those things are illegal for good reason and thus are automatically excluded from any form of acceptability or conversation.

There are several posts and topics in the Love and Dating forum right now which are in flagrant violation of that edict.

It isn't based on the person's experience and fetishizes, demeans or stereotypes women, sometimes all three. It's like reading a revolting "he man woman hater" handbook.

Can topics like those at least be moved to the Men's section so I and other women don't have to see them, at least? Thanks.

I didn't know how to contact a Mod or I would've asked this in private. I'm not trying to single any one person out but some of what I've been reading about women in the Love and Dating forum is making me literally ill.

join the club. only after 5 decades did anybody truly take a shine to me.

welcome to our cool club, Frelsun I can dig your thinking. on the "world's language" however, I found that only on the smaller scale of the wrong planet was I able to translate my ideas and words properly- the larger world is basically impenetrable.

There is no men's section. How's that for equal representation, eh? You gals get a whole discussion area, we get a single thread.