Relationship versus friendship

[Polchinski]

I just find it sad that only selective cultures here seem to maintain values indicative of respect for one's elders.

Okay we have two diffferent topics here. One is pro-old vs neutral, the other is neutral vs pro-young.

What you are saying is "they shouldn't be pro-young because they shoudl be pro-old" but my question is "even if they forget to be pro-old, why should they be pro-young on the first place?"

As I mentioned, nothing happens for a reason. So my question is: "what is the reason to be pro-young". Talking about reasons to be pro-old doesn't address that.

 

[Rodafina]

Hi @Polchinski. Thanks for your response because your response has really made me think a little.

Do you think they simply didn't like you and you were trying to "earn their graces" so to speak? I usually avoid doing this type of thing: if I feel like people don't like me I would either go into argumentative mode, or ignore them back.

I’m actually not sure if people disliked me much because I tried to make that impossible to happen. I am a people pleaser in real life and I don’t think it was a matter of trying to earn their good graces, but just sheer confusion and anxiety on my part as to how to interact with people. Being a helper/listener started out just because I was very shy and didn’t like to speak much. But then I found my value in listening to people very carefully and helping them with their problems.

My problem was that I didn’t get much back, relationships just left me with anxiety and emptiness. I think maybe it was partly something we were talking about earlier where they liked me for my skills, and sometimes as their quirky weird friend, but I was just a passing moment in their life, while they built up what seems like real friendships and relationships elsewhere.

I do come across as selfish in most of my interactions, but I guess it is a defense mechanism from facing the issues that you just described. I feel like if I were to try to show that I care, nobody will notice since they all "have a mind made about me". And trying to show the good side while "everyone else has their mind made up" is the most painful experience ever.

I understand and I am sorry this has been your experience because it is very close minded of others. To either hold you to your past behavior or rely on things that they’ve heard about you is very unfair because people are changing moment to moment and I think it is so important not to be judgmental based on the past, but simply analyze the present.

What happens in your case though? Is it also the preconceived assumptions they have about you, or is it just the pure fact that they are selfish. Somehow I think that the former would hurt a lot more than the latter. But thats just based off of projecting my own experience.

I think maybe self absorbed is the best word for them. Although, because of my confusion and anxiety, I did mask a lot. I mean a lot! I am the classic female autistic chameleon and I had little understanding of my own unique identity because I was always changing it to be able to interact with others. So I didn’t show my true self and then I got sad and disappointed in people because they weren’t really interested in who that was.

So, it has been sad and hurtful, but I am not sure that I can totally blame others here. This forum is the first place where I really talk to people as my authentic self with as little mask as possible. But I am 42 years old and I have been masking for a very long time and I have struggled with suppressing my identity and my worries with drugs and alcohol, so I am very new to all of this. I am learning to build relationships for the first time in my life. It has been very difficult in real life, but easier here on the forum.

In any case, I am sorry they put you through this. I know this hurts!

Thank you.

Yeah, that is totally how I feel. To me both the experience of being in a relationship as well as an experience of trying to get into one was very frustrating and draining. Being friends, and actually accepting the fact that we are just friends, seems a lot more liberating from this point of view and makes me feel like I would actually be able to engage a lot better with a lot less frustration.

But then again, that all depends on actually being able to accept not being in a relationship, which can be hard to accept given my age and that I want kids in future, etc. Perhaps if I could actually "be" in a relationship so I can get that box checked, then I would enjoy better friendship with other people?

Completely agreed!

By “check that box,” do you mean that marriage is something that you really want in your life or because of societal expectation that would lead to validation? It sounds like you want a family, but I wasn’t sure.

And then again, all of it is my looking at it from the distance. I haven't actually had fulfilling relationship OR fulfilling friendship. The most I had friendship-wise was something that lasted for a few days and then we grew apart. As far as relationships, I had long term relationships but only because I invested WAY too much time into dating sites trying to find them. If you spend years on dating sites eventually you would find something, yes. But I don't think I had anything in common with them.

As far as friendships, I haven't had lasting friendships. So I don't actually know. I just remember how it felt when I was about to make a friend, and thats the only thing I am really referring to.

Maybe you will find some of that here. I know it’s different than physically sharing space with people and becoming friends based on doing things together, but the variety of people here and the way we communicate allows for lots of different types of connections and friendships to blossom. It’s pretty cool I think.

Yes I agree. Although to have "validation of my life" the friendship needs to actually progress. The only validation I had was "validation of a friendship" and then they all got busy with other things to even learn much about my life.

I understand. I agree.

 

[Mr. Stevens]

Can you elaborate on how most people define love?

Them having "not healthy definition of love" can explain two separate things. One is divorce rate (that you mentioned) and the other is rejection of aspies.

Now an interestion question is: is there a connection between those two things?

A lot of people are in love with falling in love, rather than growing with someone. I get the impression they fall for an idea of someone, rather than who that person is. Love as adventure, rather than learning. They want the elusive "spark," rather than understanding, supporting, and valuing another. I suspect they love how the person makes them feel, ratter than who that person is without them. (I have been guilty of this too.)

Back in Russia, when I was a little kid, I had the opposite problem. I felt inferior for being younger because

a) My mom was giving food to older people first
b) Little kids were often put on a separate table
c) Kids under 18 don't have the right to vote

Well, part "c" applies to USA too. But I am kind of wonder about "a" and "b", though.

These are definitely true in America.

 

[Mr. Stevens]

On quite a different note: can you answer the question whether the way older people aren't accepted that you were referring to is the same or different from the examples given in that article? Because if you were referring to something different, I want to know it too. I would like to explore all angles at which older people aren't accepted.

I know this answer may be disliked by many here, and I respect people's right to live as they want, but this is what I was thinking of:

- dislike of greying hair
- plastic surgery to hide age
- the idea people are irrelevant once they hit a certain age (you see this a lot in movies and music, but it happens anywhere)
- the idea old people have no sex lives or sex drives
- the idea we must keep up with pop culture to be taken seriously, when real truth isn't temporary

Conversely, the idea that age equals wisdom has always appalled me, too. I try to enjoy the moments/phases of my life for what they are.

 

[Polchinski]

I love and value my friends just as much as my romantic loves, if not more. My bond and loyalty to friends can't be broken because these relationships are based wholly on respect, shared values, and emotional vulnerability. There's nothing else to muck it up.

In friendship I'm free from the volatility of sexuality, physical chemistry, financial commitment, or (to put it bluntly) legal obligation, like we have in marriage or monogamous partnerships. I don't idealise friends to fit them into my life goals or a specific script, like having children together or retiring at the coast. There isn't a social expectation that my friendships might implode by divorce, betrayal, or loss of physical attraction.

I can have more than one friend and love each one for who they are and our shared interests, faults and all. I don't have to commit to just one friend. It's liberating because I know that I've chosen my friends freely even though our entire lives don't need to gel. Simultaneous friendships fulfil different needs in my life, or different parts of my personality. I don't rely on one friend to be my everything at the exclusion of other friends, and I don't get jealous or feel threatened if they do the same. This shows a level of trust and maturity we don't always find in romantic or sexual relationships. It makes forgiveness much easier too, because our entire lives aren't on the line.

I love my friends with my whole heart, in an almost selfless way because my body isn't required. Friendship is based on our hearts, minds and deeds, rather than our bodies, and in my opinion that makes the connection more lasting.

I'm fiercely loyal to my friends, and I'd fight for their trust through thick and thin.
I hope they know how much they're loved.

Thank you so much for explaining it this way. It actually makes a lot of sense. I wish I could have those kinds of friendships.

 

[Polchinski]

A lot of people are in love with falling in love, rather than growing with someone. I get the impression they fall for an idea of someone, rather than who that person is. Love as adventure, rather than learning. They want the elusive "spark," rather than understanding, supporting, and valuing another. I suspect they love how the person makes them feel, ratter than who that person is without them. (I have been guilty of this too.)



These are definitely true in America.

I have actually been guilty of this too, although I hate pop culture. So its not something I have learned from pop culture. Its just my own nature.

And its not just with people but with places too. Each time I go to a new place (typically, new school) I feel like I am about to have new start, and everything is going to be great. But then the new place will become old again and I end up again wishing I could go to a new place.

I guess both with places and with people, what ends up happening is that "this person just follows this routine, how can they be this way their whole life and not get bored with themselves", or at a new place I feel like "this place just has those particular things and nothing else to offer, how can people be stuck here their whole life".

Now, when it comes to people, I also end up seeing certain traints I downright dislike. The clearest example was my first ex. First two months she was treating me like a normal person. But then, 2 months later, when I mentioned to her some of my behaviors from the past, she started treating me as a disabled, to the point of going to see her friends by herself without me and having me wait for her in her appartment without giving me keys. So I was thinking "its all had to do with that particular thing I told her 2 months later, if only I didn't tell her that thing, everything would have continued to be as great as they were at first".

However, there was something else she told me, that clearly was unrelated to me because she was recasting what she did long before she met me. So she had some unwanted kittens and she asked her dad to kill them, which he did. Even though I didn't like it one bit and resented her for it, here is something that didn't occur to me before which occurred to me now. If her behavior with kittens happened before she met me, could it be that she was DESTINED to act towards me in a similar way, and she simply put up a front for the first 2 months? In other words, could it be that it had nothing to do with that specific conversation we had 2 months later, and her true colors would have come out anyway, its just the matter of time?

But in this case, the only way in which it relates to pop culture is that pop culture teaches you to "put best foot forward". So SHE was the one being influenced by pop culture, not me. SHE put her best foot forward and thats why I didn't know who she really was during those first 2 months. So its not so much that "I was in love with idea of her but not her". Rather it was because "she didn't tell me who she really was".

Or are you saying that the way in which it was my fault is that I wasn't asking her deeper questions about her life's philosophy? Because if I were to ask her those questions then I would have understood that her philosophy clashes with mine, but I never thought to ask them?

And, going back to places, could that also be that I don't really bother to learn about the place I am about to move to, I am just jumping head first hoping for "all problems to be solved", but if I were to bother to study it through then I won't have had that initial thrill followed by disappointment?

 

[Polchinski]

- dislike of greying hair

Then what if they color it?

- the idea people are irrelevant once they hit a certain age (you see this a lot in movies and music, but it happens anywhere)

What movies are you referring to? I am not a movie person so I can't think of more than two or three. So one movie I am thinking of is "Fireproof", and in that movie the parents of the main character were quite relevant, and were both very positive. The other one I am thinking of is "everyone loves raymond", there the mother is a negative character, but she is still not "irrelevant": she actually takes a central stage there.

The one movie I can think of where the older character is irrelevant is "Snow queen". The question that I have, which nobody else seems to have thought of, is "why didn't Cai's grandma go to rescue Cai". It almost sounds like Cai had a really negligent grandma.

Well, incidentally, Snow Queen was written in the 19-th century where I would of assumed they respected the elders quite a bit. While the other things I mentioned are modern, where they supposedly don't respect the elders. But then again maybe I just don't have a good sample. Particularly "fireproof" is not a good example since it is a Christian movie and Christians are very traditionalist.

I guess I am not that much of a movie person thats why I can't think of much. If I think of things like "sex and the city" I don't recall "irrelevant older people". That show simply doesn't have older people to begin with.

- the idea old people have no sex lives or sex drives

Thats interesting since the other thing I heard is about "dirty old man". So it seems like a contradiction: the old man is both "too sexual" and "not sexual enough" at the same time?

However, with regards to "dirty old men", I am a bit closer to answering this question because I have a couple of real life examples of it.

1) My girlfriend, who is 28, and non-denominational, met 70+ year old man on the same dating site she met me. He tried to convince both her and me, to try to help find each of us better match. He also at one point wanted to help me get back with one of my ex-s, and when this didn't work he wanted to help me be with the sister of my ex. He also, himself, tried to ask out my current girlfriend, said ex and her sister. Also, after I mentioned I was contemplating about selling my appartment in Russia, he offered to have me sell it to someone specific whom he knows (interestingly enough, he first asked me where I live used to live in Russia and when I said Moscow he said he knows someone in Moscow).

2) In the communtity college where I was teaching, they wanted me to shaddow class for 2 weeks and then give a practice talk of a class on a similar level. That class was taught by 70 year old man. That man offered me to be a guest lecturer on his after 2 weeks of shaddowing. From what I later learned, this has never been done to anyone else, and the idea was that I give a one on one practice lecture, but this old man jumped in and came up with his own idea on how to do it. Then when I started giving my lecture, that old man was commenting to the associate dean out loud that this is supposed to be a basic class and how he was upset I was teaching on too high level. Well, as far as teaching it on too high level, the associate dean agreed with him -- and no associate dean isn't old -- I am also mad at associate dean for not giving me a chance for a redo. But ontice this: associate dean wasn't making the comments out loud, the old man did, and doing so in the middle of lecture is rude. Then when associate dean decided that I am not ready to teach algebra-based physics next semester (thats the class I gave practice talk at), I came to the calculus-based lab that I was shaddowing, and that old man was teaching calculus based lab too. So when I just walked into the classroom, he asked "how was your conversation with the associate dean". So why would he ask in his calculus-based lab about something that pertains to algebra-based physics that has nothing to do with him?

In any case, going back to the "dirty old man". The man in example 1 in fact hit on much younger women. As far as the man in example 2, he didn't. But at the same time I can easily picture him do that. Not in a flirty way but more in an authoritative way as in he can be bold he can say whatever he thinks, so if he decides to make a bold comment about the girl he can.

Now, if that is the case, then this would be a way to reconcile the idea that "old people don't have sex life" and "dirty old men". As in, the "dirty old man" might have lower sex drive than his younger counterpart, BUT he is a lot more bold so, whatever little sex drive he has, he would be overly bold about it. Now, thats just my theory. But the question is: is this what is going on or is it something completely different? If it is something different, please tell me what it is.

And, speaking of the boldness of old people, what is the theory as to why that happens? I think of few possible reasons:

a) These are early signs of dimentia

b) The society in the past used to be a lot more bold than nowdays, so whatever they are doing used to be appropriate in the 50-s

c) Going along with "b", they used to have "respect for the elderly". So it used to be "whatever old men say goes". Clearly, they weren't old back in the 50-s. But they learned that concept. So they are applying this concept nowdays

d) For some weird reasons older people DO have stronger sex drive. This makes no sense from evolutionary perspective, at least I can't see it. But do you have any theory why that would be the case?

e) Other. Specify.

- the idea we must keep up with pop culture to be taken seriously, when real truth isn't temporary

Well, I didn't keep up with pop culture when I was young either. Is THAT why I was ostracized back in the good old days? So if, by contrast, I learn pop culture now, would I get accepted, or would they simply assume I don't know it since I am old?

Conversely, the idea that age equals wisdom has always appalled me, too. I try to enjoy the moments/phases of my life for what they are.

Well, there would be a correlation between age and wisdom. But what I am saying is that you can't "reward" someone for something thats expected. If wisdom is expected, that would invalidate the idea of rewarding it. But that doesn't change the fact that they might be interesting to TALK TO, to hear what they have to say about things.

 

[Polchinski]

Hi @Polchinski. Thanks for your response because your response has really made me think a little.

I’m actually not sure if people disliked me much because I tried to make that impossible to happen. I am a people pleaser in real life and I don’t think it was a matter of trying to earn their good graces, but just sheer confusion and anxiety on my part as to how to interact with people. Being a helper/listener started out just because I was very shy and didn’t like to speak much. But then I found my value in listening to people very carefully and helping them with their problems.

Could it be that you paid attention to what they had to say about their life but you didn't pay attention to what they thought about you, personally?

When you were listening to them, were they actually talking "to you", or were they talking to a group of people? If they talked to a group of people, maybe you just assumed you were part of that group when in their mind you weren't?

Or if they were talking to you, maybe they just picked a completely random listening ear while you assumed there was something more?

My problem was that I didn’t get much back, relationships just left me with anxiety and emptiness. I think maybe it was partly something we were talking about earlier where they liked me for my skills, and sometimes as their quirky weird friend, but I was just a passing moment in their life, while they built up what seems like real friendships and relationships elsewhere.

Oh yeah I remember that conversation. Putting it together with what you wrote now, I see that you probably suggested that I do the same thing you have done, and I didn't like the idea for the same reason as to why your experiences doing it weren't the best. Of course I didn't know your experiences till you just told me now. But it reminded me of some glimpses of my own life that I didn't like that much, and thats probably why I didn't like the idea of repeating it. And from what you are saying now I guess you been through the same thing. In fact probably a lot more than me since you were putting yourself in that kind of position a lot more often.

And I am sorry that I reacted the way I did. Now I see that the reason you were giving me the advice the way you did is that this is how you yourself interacted with people, and so giving advice out of our own experience is sometimes all we know how to do, even if our experience is not the best. Sometimes this can feel frustrating but, in the retrospect, I see a good side to it. In particular, if someone assumes I am a complete weirdo they can't relate to, they probably would "not" project themselves to me. So the fact that you do, at least it shows that you recognize that I am someone you can relate to. And even if your advice isn't the best, at least its nice to feel you can relate.

I understand and I am sorry this has been your experience because it is very close minded of others. To either hold you to your past behavior or rely on things that they’ve heard about you is very unfair because people are changing moment to moment and I think it is so important not to be judgmental based on the past, but simply analyze the present.

Thank you so much for acknowledging how frustrating that is. I haven't even mentioned the incidents of people holding me to my past, but you could guess it. That was thoughtful of you. And yes, there were many times when they were holding me to my past and it was super frustrating.

I think maybe self absorbed is the best word for them.

Are you sure we are picturing the same thing when we say "self absorbed"? When I say this word, what I am picturing is someone living in their head, which is kind of what I am doing as an aspie. So an NT that has lots of social life, I won't describe that way.

Are you saying that the people you are talking about were also shy and introverted?

Or are you saying that they did have lots of social life, but they were self absorbed in a sense that it was all a superficial appearance, while their true goals were selfish?

I mean yes I would describe them as selfish, but not self-absorbed. Although I can see that if you linguistically dissect those two terms, there might be a connection.

Although, because of my confusion and anxiety, I did mask a lot. I mean a lot!

I haven't masked at all. And I think that is what hurt me actually. It seems like whatever is on my end is "not masking", on the other people's end would be "masking in the opposite direction", as in people would misunderstand me as if I am much worse than I really am.

Sometimes I am wondering, could it be that everyone masks, including NT-s? And so being "the only person who doesn't mask" is what results in the outcome of "masking in the opposite direction"?

So, it has been sad and hurtful, but I am not sure that I can totally blame others here.

Well, you were masking and it didn't help. I weren't masking and it didn't help either. So its a no-win situation. And thats where others "are" to blame".

This forum is the first place where I really talk to people as my authentic self with as little mask as possible.

I am glad you were able to find the place where you feel comfortable and accepted the way you are.

But I am 42 years old

We are very similar ages since I turned 43 just this december. So this means that you can relate to what I am going through.

Do you also feel like you missed out on best years of your life? Do you also wish to be accepted by younger people so you could "redo" all those years that you missed?

and I have been masking for a very long time and I have struggled with suppressing my identity and my worries with drugs and alcohol,

So did you get to the point of being jobless and/or homeless? Or do you have a regular life and job, and are only using alcohol at night?

Me personally, I never used alcohol or any drugs, thankfully. And I never been homeless either. Yet past few years people were confusing me with one, probably due to how I dress, and I found it super frustrating.

I guess the solution is simple: just dress better. But what to do with all those years I stupidly lost due to how I dressed, simply because it never occurred to me that the way I dress plays any role?

so I am very new to all of this. I am learning to build relationships for the first time in my life.

I am so glad you found a place where you feel a lot more comfortable.

By “check that box,” do you mean that marriage is something that you really want in your life or because of societal expectation that would lead to validation? It sounds like you want a family, but I wasn’t sure.

Here is the thing.

1) The idea of having a family scares me. I want my independence

2) The idea of dying childless also scares me: I want my genes to pass

3) I don't believe in sex outside of marriage and I don't believe in divorce. So "2" logically implies family

So the implication of 1+2+3 is basically "I wish I was a lot younger: this way I would be able to enjoy single life now and still assume that I will get a family sometime far down the road".

I resent my age more than anything, time flew by too fast.

As far as "checking that box" its really checking "relationship" box (not marriage one). As long as I am "in a relationship", I can feel validated, and then make friends without feeling inferior to them for the fact that they have someone and I don't.

The marriage part is not necessery for it. But it IS necessary when it comes to a distant future of avoiding dying childless.

 

[VictorR]

Here is the thing.

1) The idea of having a family scares me. I want my independence

2) The idea of dying childless also scares me: I want my genes to pass

3) I don't believe in sex outside of marriage and I don't believe in divorce. So "2" logically implies family

So the implication of 1+2+3 is basically "I wish I was a lot younger: this way I would be able to enjoy single life now and still assume that I will get a family sometime far down the road".

I resent my age more than anything, time flew by too fast.

As far as "checking that box" its really checking "relationship" box (not marriage one). As long as I am "in a relationship", I can feel validated, and then make friends without feeling inferior to them for the fact that they have someone and I don't.

The marriage part is not necessery for it. But it IS necessary when it comes to a distant future of avoiding dying childless.

When I looked at your #1/2/3, the first thing that came to mind would be becoming a sperm donor.

However, there is the possibility that you may be rejected on the account of age and/or being on the spectrum.

 

[Polchinski]

When I looked at your #1/2/3, the first thing that came to mind would be becoming a sperm donor.

However, there is the possibility that you may be rejected on the account of age and/or being on the spectrum.

First of all, I am against it because any kids conceived outside of marriage, including sperm donor, is unbiblical. I mean, I realize that being born of sperm donation is not the same as being born of fornication. But think of it this way. Fornication is more natural than sperm donation. So why would God be saying that something less natural is preferable to something more natural? It sounds as crazy as an idea that artificial sweeteners are better than real sugar. So if I don't want kids to be born of fornication, I surely won't want them to be born from sperm donation thing. I want them to be conceived within marriage in a biblical way.

However, I can't help but talk about a different point. This whole idea that they won't let a sperm donor who is on the spectrum, sounds like a genocide. Remember all those messages where people on this site (and others) insist that autism is not a desease, that its not worse just different, etc. But then why not follow it to the logical conclusion and reproduce?

To answer my own question, to me it seems like their philosophy is the following. They are saying its okay to be autistic and they are also saying its okay not to have kids. So both things are okay, or so it seem. But if you look at it deeper you will realize how self contradictory they are. If everything is okay, they won't be STOPPING autistics sperm donors from making sperm donations. So they don't think that everything is okay, contrary to what they say. They are only saying it to soften the blow.

Now let me also point out the following. Saying "autistics shouldn't reproduce" is actually A LOT MORE offensive than simply saying "autism is a disease". Because you see, saying someone shouldn't reproduce is a genocide since it amounts to taking their genes out of the gene pool. Simply saying that someone has a disease and sending them to the hospital is not as bad as Nazi sending those people to gas chambers. Do you follow what I mean?

Here is another question that I honestly don't know the answer. What about other diseases? Are people suffering from other diseases allowed to be sperm donors? If the answer is yes, this again confirms my point that their opinion of autism is worse than their opinion of a disease. If the answer is no, then they are basically reenacting Hitler's program of genociding the disabled, they are just doing it in a more humane manner.

I guess this whole thing is irrelevant to me since I don't want to be a sperm donor anyway. But here is the part that is relevant. When I ask why people don't try to set me up with someone. Do you think they are thinking the same thing as the people who outlawed autistic sperm donors? If so, that could be the root of my problem.

 

[Polchinski]

These are definitely true in America.

As far as who is being served first, when my mom moved to America, I noticed that her American landlord didn't care about age when it comes to whom to serve first.

But then again, it he lived in Berkeley. Could it be that what I thought of as "America" really applies just to Berkeley, or California, or perhaps just blue states?

In order to see older people being served first, should I go to a red state, or basically any state other than California?

My own experience is I been to California, Minnesota, Michigan, Mississippi and New Mexico. The ones where I was old were Mississippi and New Mexico and it seemed like I was ostracized for my age both places.

As far as whether they serve the older first in any of those states, I don't have any evidence either way since I wasn't invited anywhere (which is part of my problem by the way: why is nobody ever invites me???). But if I follow the above logic and THEORIZE that in Mississippi they serve older first (given that its a red state), that would be pretty weird since they ostracized me for my age there, as well.

So are you saying that they discriminate against the younger when it comes to serving food and discriminate against the older when it comes to not inviting them anywhere? As in, basically, no matter what your age, you can never win? Is that what you are saying?

 

[Mr. Stevens]

Then what if they color it?

That's what I was criticizing. Not accepting grey hair by hiding it.

What movies are you referring to?

I didn't mean a specific movie, but the movie industry. Many actresses complain that they don't get good parts after 30 because of their age.

And, speaking of the boldness of old people, what is the theory as to why that happens? I think of few possible reasons:

a) These are early signs of dimentia

b) The society in the past used to be a lot more bold than nowdays, so whatever they are doing used to be appropriate in the 50-s

c) Going along with "b", they used to have "respect for the elderly". So it used to be "whatever old men say goes". Clearly, they weren't old back in the 50-s. But they learned that concept. So they are applying this concept nowdays

d) For some weird reasons older people DO have stronger sex drive. This makes no sense from evolutionary perspective, at least I can't see it. But do you have any theory why that would be the case?

e) Other. Specify.

Well, the answer will lie in the individual. With age and experience, people may realize the insecurities of their youth were mostly trivial, too.

Well, I didn't keep up with pop culture when I was young either. Is THAT why I was ostracized back in the good old days? So if, by contrast, I learn pop culture now, would I get accepted, or would they simply assume I don't know it since I am old?

I doubt there is one answer to either.

Well, there would be a correlation between age and wisdom.

Wisdom comes from observation, which age gives us more time for. But, that doesn't mean most people are observant.

 

[Mr. Stevens]

As far as who is being served first, when my mom moved to America, I noticed that her American landlord didn't care about age when it comes to whom to serve first.

But then again, it he lived in Berkeley. Could it be that what I thought of as "America" really applies just to Berkeley, or California, or perhaps just blue states?

In order to see older people being served first, should I go to a red state, or basically any state other than California?

My own experience is I been to California, Minnesota, Michigan, Mississippi and New Mexico. The ones where I was old were Mississippi and New Mexico and it seemed like I was ostracized for my age both places.

As far as whether they serve the older first in any of those states, I don't have any evidence either way since I wasn't invited anywhere (which is part of my problem by the way: why is nobody ever invites me???). But if I follow the above logic and THEORIZE that in Mississippi they serve older first (given that its a red state), that would be pretty weird since they ostracized me for my age there, as well.

So are you saying that they discriminate against the younger when it comes to serving food and discriminate against the older when it comes to not inviting them anywhere? As in, basically, no matter what your age, you can never win? Is that what you are saying?

I don't think trying to systematize is going to help. Blue states don't all have the same culture, and different homes in any culture can still have their own practices. All I meant was that there are people in America who serve adults first, and who sit children at their own table. I imagine this happens in different households throughout the world. I wasn't saying anything more than that.

I don't think serving children second is discrimination, because there can be practical reasons for that. Not inviting an old person somewhere doesn't have to be discrimination either.

 

[Rodafina]

Thanks again for your response. Hearing questions and writing about my feelings actually helps me figure things out a lot. On a sidenote, I hope you feel like you are getting the engagement that you wanted here on the site! It seems like you are. I hope that you are enjoying your time here.

Could it be that you paid attention to what they had to say about their life but you didn't pay attention to what they thought about you, personally?

At the risk of sounding conceited, I think they liked me well enough, just weren’t really interested in me. I think I was forgettable to them. The reason they “like” me, I think is because, like I said, I played the part so that they would. I was extremely fearful of rejection.

When you were listening to them, were they actually talking "to you", or were they talking to a group of people? If they talked to a group of people, maybe you just assumed you were part of that group when in their mind you weren't?

It was always just one other person or maybe two. In larger groups than that, I am very quiet. Usually silent all together.

Oh yeah I remember that conversation. Putting it together with what you wrote now, I see that you probably suggested that I do the same thing you have done, and I didn't like the idea for the same reason as to why your experiences doing it weren't the best. Of course I didn't know your experiences till you just told me now. But it reminded me of some glimpses of my own life that I didn't like that much, and thats probably why I didn't like the idea of repeating it. And from what you are saying now I guess you been through the same thing. In fact probably a lot more than me since you were putting yourself in that kind of position a lot more often.

Thank you for saying and recognizing that. It definitely takes time to get to know someone, so sometimes our old comments can be seen in a new context with more understanding. Just like we were saying in a previous message about not holding someone to their past or making assumptions, just evaluating your experience with them moment by moment.

And I am sorry that I reacted the way I did. Now I see that the reason you were giving me the advice the way you did is that this is how you yourself interacted with people, and so giving advice out of our own experience is sometimes all we know how to do, even if our experience is not the best.

Again, thank you for saying this and really, no need to apologize. I think you are right that often our strongest advice is from our own life experiences rather than strictly from textbooks. I feel embarrassed that it felt like advice, because I try not to advise people, seeing that I feel like such a mess myself. You are not wrong, I guess I do that all the time, but I try really hard not to tell people what to do or expect that I can. I like discussing things, but I am in no position to be ordering people around!

Sometimes this can feel frustrating but, in the retrospect, I see a good side to it. In particular, if someone assumes I am a complete weirdo they can't relate to, they probably would "not" project themselves to me. So the fact that you do, at least it shows that you recognize that I am someone you can relate to. And even if your advice isn't the best, at least its nice to feel you can relate.

Absolutely! The things you have shared here on the forum so far are very thought-provoking and clearly you are interested in finding kindred spirits but have struggled with that. Welcome to the club! Many of us here are like that and we can see beyond one’s quirks and imperfections to the human behind it all. I joke around, as many of us do, that we are aliens, never having quite found our place here on earth. But, this forum gets pretty close for me.

Thank you so much for acknowledging how frustrating that is. I haven't even mentioned the incidents of people holding me to my past, but you could guess it. That was thoughtful of you. And yes, there were many times when they were holding me to my past and it was super frustrating.

Frustrating that people are so rigid in their perception of others. I think people should allow each other to adapt and change and just see them for who they are in the moment.

Are you sure we are picturing the same thing when we say "self absorbed"? When I say this word, what I am picturing is someone living in their head, which is kind of what I am doing as an aspie. So an NT that has lots of social life, I won't describe that way.

Good question. Based on what you have written here, I guess the people I am talking about would fall into the category of selfish… In this case, mostly meaning that they are only really concerned with their own issues and problems and experience in the world. By self absorbed, I do think I meant something different where they just get absorbed in their own lives with others. There are people who I was sort of friends with that I feel like I lost to their partners and families. They were available to me when they were single, but as they got busy with partners and their own lives, it seems like they forgot about me.

I haven't masked at all. And I think that is what hurt me actually. It seems like whatever is on my end is "not masking", on the other people's end would be "masking in the opposite direction", as in people would misunderstand me as if I am much worse than I really am.

Sometimes I am wondering, could it be that everyone masks, including NT-s? And so being "the only person who doesn't mask" is what results in the outcome of "masking in the opposite direction"?

Maybe. I can see how some of the confusing social behavior of NTs could be considered masking. For me, the masking wasn’t really a conscious choice, but a means of trying to figure out how to survive in the world. I was always confused and anxious with people. Now that the mask is off more often, I am having more of an experience a kin to yours. People think I am odd without the mask. But, it is more important for me to just be me than to feel ordinary.

Well, you were masking and it didn't help. I weren't masking and it didn't help either. So its a no-win situation. And thats where others "are" to blame".

Yes. Maybe no one is to blame individually, but rather an unfortunately rigid society that is not understanding of neurodivergence.

I am glad you were able to find the place where you feel comfortable and accepted the way you are.

Thank you! I am grateful!

We are very similar ages since I turned 43 just this december. So this means that you can relate to what I am going through.

Do you also feel like you missed out on best years of your life? Do you also wish to be accepted by younger people so you could "redo" all those years that you missed?

I think our experiences here are a bit different. I see what you mean by missing out on the best years of life, and although I have been a bit of a mess for most of my life, I don’t quite see it that way for me. I don’t see why my past years would have to be the best and now, informed with knowledge about autism and some actual real friendships here on the forum, I am looking for the next bunch of years to possibly be the best of my life.

I look to get along with and be accepted by absolutely anyone, young or old or my age. Successful experiences with people my own age have been the rarest as I can usually get along well with those much older or younger than me (in real life). Connecting with actual peers is a very new experience for me.

 

[Rodafina]

So did you get to the point of being jobless and/or homeless? Or do you have a regular life and job, and are only using alcohol at night?

Jobless, yes. Homeless, gratefully no, as I do have parents that are extremely supportive. I am in recovery. Free from drugs and alcohol completely, but very new to it. Just under three months of true sobriety. So, although I destroyed the puzzle of my life time and time again, I am starting to put the pieces into place now. We will see what the picture is at the end of it all!

Me personally, I never used alcohol or any drugs, thankfully. And I never been homeless either. Yet past few years people were confusing me with one, probably due to how I dress, and I found it super frustrating.

I guess the solution is simple: just dress better. But what to do with all those years I stupidly lost due to how I dressed, simply because it never occurred to me that the way I dress plays any role?

I am always sorry to hear about another person’s frustration with this sort of thing. It does seem like most humans form a lot of opinions over how someone dresses. It doesn’t really make sense to me, but I do see it happening all the time.

Maybe there is a happy medium where you are dressing comfortably as you like, but possibly tidied up a bit if you want that sort of acceptance. I think the bigger issue is that most folks seem to have a very poor impression of homeless people, when we are all just moments away from being the same thing ourselves. I wish people in the world were more accepting of anyone, regardless of how they look and how they dress.

Here is the thing.

1) The idea of having a family scares me. I want my independence

2) The idea of dying childless also scares me: I want my genes to pass

3) I don't believe in sex outside of marriage and I don't believe in divorce. So "2" logically implies family

So the implication of 1+2+3 is basically "I wish I was a lot younger: this way I would be able to enjoy single life now and still assume that I will get a family sometime far down the road".

I resent my age more than anything, time flew by too fast.

I understand. That is quite a difficult puzzle to solve.

As far as "checking that box" its really checking "relationship" box (not marriage one). As long as I am "in a relationship", I can feel validated, and then make friends without feeling inferior to them for the fact that they have someone and I don't.

The marriage part is not necessery for it. But it IS necessary when it comes to a distant future of avoiding dying childless.

I understand this, too.

From my part, I have turned in a different direction. Where these puzzles and feelings are so confusing to me that I really think I am better off putting my time and energy into forming friendships and platonic relationships, simply because I cannot handle the intricacies, the confusion, and the anxiety of having a romantic partner. This certainly wouldn’t work for everyone, but I think that is the direction in which I am going.

 

[VictorR]

First of all, I am against it because any kids conceived outside of marriage, including sperm donor, is unbiblical. I mean, I realize that being born of sperm donation is not the same as being born of fornication. But think of it this way. Fornication is more natural than sperm donation. So why would God be saying that something less natural is preferable to something more natural? It sounds as crazy as an idea that artificial sweeteners are better than real sugar. So if I don't want kids to be born of fornication, I surely won't want them to be born from sperm donation thing. I want them to be conceived within marriage in a biblical way.

However, I can't help but talk about a different point. This whole idea that they won't let a sperm donor who is on the spectrum, sounds like a genocide. Remember all those messages where people on this site (and others) insist that autism is not a desease, that its not worse just different, etc. But then why not follow it to the logical conclusion and reproduce?

To answer my own question, to me it seems like their philosophy is the following. They are saying its okay to be autistic and they are also saying its okay not to have kids. So both things are okay, or so it seem. But if you look at it deeper you will realize how self contradictory they are. If everything is okay, they won't be STOPPING autistics sperm donors from making sperm donations. So they don't think that everything is okay, contrary to what they say. They are only saying it to soften the blow.

Now let me also point out the following. Saying "autistics shouldn't reproduce" is actually A LOT MORE offensive than simply saying "autism is a disease". Because you see, saying someone shouldn't reproduce is a genocide since it amounts to taking their genes out of the gene pool. Simply saying that someone has a disease and sending them to the hospital is not as bad as Nazi sending those people to gas chambers. Do you follow what I mean?

Here is another question that I honestly don't know the answer. What about other diseases? Are people suffering from other diseases allowed to be sperm donors? If the answer is yes, this again confirms my point that their opinion of autism is worse than their opinion of a disease. If the answer is no, then they are basically reenacting Hitler's program of genociding the disabled, they are just doing it in a more humane manner.

I guess this whole thing is irrelevant to me since I don't want to be a sperm donor anyway. But here is the part that is relevant. When I ask why people don't try to set me up with someone. Do you think they are thinking the same thing as the people who outlawed autistic sperm donors? If so, that could be the root of my problem.

I should clarify that in regards to sperm donation, there's two major groupings that they fall into:

1. Those who are donating to a sperm bank that could be accessed by anyone

2. Those who are donating to someone specific (e.g. a friend, family member, colleague) and those who choose to have a child via a surrogate

For the latter (#2), there are generally no restrictions as long as everyone agrees.

However, for the former (#1),
a) Banks often have age limits since if I recall correctly, viability decreases with age, and there are also some correlations between age and potential genetic problems.
b) Those seeking to access the bank quite often have specific attributes that they may be looking for. Some might look for someone similar to them. But there are many who treat it the same way they do when looking for a partner - seeking what they feel are attractive traits. So samples from a young, tall, blonde, blue-eyed surgeon with no health concerns and whose family have lived long lives are likely to be extremely popular, and there might be thousand of requests, for them, while more "average" samples may be generally passed over. As some banks are for-profit businesses, they would naturally want donations from individuals who are more marketable.


As for your question at the end, I'm not a relationship expert, nor do I claim to know about relationships. But I kindly ask that you take a look at your post.

You are clearly someone who is quite knowledgeable, and also eager to learn more about what you don't know, which from your posts so far, often are in very subjective areas for which there answers are variable, unless in math or physics where there's usually a "right answer". I understand that this can be challenging, but in your post, there's a lot of frustration and anger showing, and while I understand you're talking openly and with curiosity, this can be interpreted as aggressive behaviour, which can intimidate people and scare them away.

Additionally, let's keep in mind that first impressions matter a lot, and can be hard to change.

Something common for those on the spectrum is to talk too much too soon. You've expressed a lot of opinions, and it's really good that you're comfortable with yourself and your views (unlike some of us, like myself and Rodafina, who have in our pasts defaulted to being the opposite - a people pleaser). If your opinion aligns with someone else's opinion, that's great - it might be something you could forge a connection over. But if the opinion doesn't align with others (and especially in the case of someone who holds a lot of minority opinions), you run the significant risk of forming a lot of negative first impressions that could lead a potential connection to fail before the foundations have been established. As such, one social skill that many autistic individuals have to learn, often with significant trial and error, is when to check their passions and hold back from saying too much too soon, and to try to eschew controversial topics lest they scare off someone who might have otherwise made a good friend.

I hope this might be useful, and again, if I'm being blunt, I'm sorry.

 

[Judge]

What you are saying is "they shouldn't be pro-young because they shoudl be pro-old" but my question is "even if they forget to be pro-old, why should they be pro-young on the first place?"

No. I'm simply lamenting that young people in our culture don't seem to relate to old people.

However IMO there is no "should be" when it comes to culture in my country. People- whatever generation they reflect are who they are, especially in a very eclectic society like the US. Making most pro-young or pro-old sentiments out of place compared to more homogenous cultures and peoples.

Yet it doesn't disqualify me from observing ageism whether it involves myself or my peers. It's still sad, whatever one's age may be. At the same time neither does it negate the possibilities of friendship or relationships between the young or the old. Though it can and does make such things more difficult.

To reiterate, as a senior citizen I just wish things were a bit better than they are. That's all.

 

[paloftoon]

Not everyone wants to color their hair or may know how to.
I prefer colored hair and fake aesthetic over someone that "always looks old."
Some people can tell when someone is using products and some can't. I usually can't and even if I can, it doesn't bug me personally as I just like the initial image I have of someone.
OP, what you said earlier about realizing how people may want your company instead of you is an epiphany for you. It would seem that people could tell you were a people pleaser and most people probably took advantage of this. It's generally good to be a people pleaser for work. In the real world, people around you might not feel like they can depend on you when a serious issue comes up. A people pleaser might say what someone wants to hear rather than what they need to know.
It's hard, by try your best to find a good balance between defining your own social boundaries and being able to express yourself well. Go by context a lot. Let things build and if you try things others want to do, invite them back to something you like. If they don't reciprocate, you can stop going said activity with said friend if you don't like that activity. If friend asks why, you can tell him/her you're looking for more reciprocation. You don't have to unfriend anyone that doesn't seem to be quite meshing you well enough, but you can make that door harder and harder to open. People need to earn your respect and your beautiful uniqueness as much as you have been attempting to do so with them.

Try Jewel Never Broken and put that "Simon B." referred you.
Best wishes.

 

[Polchinski]

Thanks again for your response. Hearing questions and writing about my feelings actually helps me figure things out a lot.

I am glad to hear that what I am doing actually helps you out too. I was really focused on myself to be honest, and was pretty much trying to have everyone else help "me" out. So its nice to know that I ended up helping "you" out when I wasn't even trying to.

Anyway, I don't mean to sound selfish or whatnot, just being honest.

I am still happy for you that the you found the interaction helpful.

On a sidenote, I hope you feel like you are getting the engagement that you wanted here on the site! It seems like you are. I hope that you are enjoying your time here.

Well, lets look at numbers. I didn't ruin things with post number 1, instead I ruined them with post number 2: because post number 1 was short as it is supposed to be, while post number 2 was long winded. So lets compare how many responses I got before post number 2 versus how many responses I got after that.

Well, between post number 1 and post number 2, I got probably 3 different replies. But its been only half an hour or so between those two posts. 3 replies in half an hour is amazing. If only I were to refrain from checking the internet for a day, my post would have probably generated 15 different replies from 15 different people. But of course this didn't happen since I ruined everything with post number 2.

Now, lets look at the current situation. How many people are regularly responding to me now? Well, I would say yourself, Judge, VictorR and Mr Stevens. So I got 4 people. But if I didn't write that long winded post, it would have been 15. So you see how I still pushed away the vast majority of people. I only have select few that respond to me at all.

Also let me point out this: the people that responded to me between post number 1 and post number 2, were NOT the 4 people that talk to me now. So its not like "I got my 4 people and I stick with them". Rather, its a lot more like "I used to attract all kinds of people but then I pushed them all away and I am left with select few". If I didn't write my post number 2, then probably those 4 people would have talked to me eventually but, by then, I would have also had 20 other people that would have been talking to me.

And also note how at some point nobody was responding to me at all, and I literally had to scream for attention with my angry post about being ignored. So, at least in your case, its possible you wouldn't have written to me if I didn't make you feel sorry for me with that post. As far as the other three people, I guess on the surface it doesn't look that way because they are responding here not there, so I can just naively assume they haven't read that other post. But then again maybe they DID read it. In which case, who knows, maybe they wouldn't have responded either if I didn't make them feel sorry for me.

Again, contrast it with what happened between Post 1 and Post 2. I didn't have to make angry post yelling for attention. I didn't have to make anyone feel sorry for me. The responses just started coming all on their own. So what could have been a bunch of natural connections developing with a bunch of people, now became something forced with select few.

Speaking of "forced", notice the content of conversation. Its not a real socialization. Its an exchange of essays. And writing essay is a chore -- in a sense that I literally have to put aside my other chores (such as working on my Ph.D. thesis or grading) in order to write a point by point reply. Now, this part I can't really blame anyone else on because I am the one who likes to be long winded, nobody is forcing me to. But here is the thing. Lets say that others were liking me more. Then they would have themselves started some lighter conversations with me. In which case, I would have been responding to that lighter conversation 20 times a day, which would have taken me 1 minute each time and then, on the weekends when I had more time, I would have written my long winded posts. But since nobody likes me, I have to rely on starting my own topics. I can't think of any other topics besides long winded ones. Thats why my participation here reduces to long winded posts and makes me feel like its a chore. Now, whose fault is it? Partly mine, because I can't think of any "lighter" topics. But partly everyone elses: because when THEY think of some lighter topics, their intended audience is NOT me. Well, instead of focusing on the former, lets focus on the latter. Why don't people want to start lighter conversations with me? Because they doing like me!

At the risk of sounding conceited, I think they liked me well enough, just weren’t really interested in me. I think I was forgettable to them. The reason they “like” me, I think is because, like I said, I played the part so that they would. I was extremely fearful of rejection.

It was always just one other person or maybe two. In larger groups than that, I am very quiet. Usually silent all together.

Okay then I guess it was different from what I thought. In my case I was outright rejected, so I was projecting my own experience on you. But I guess in your case you weren't rejected, you were just forgettable. Still, I am sorry you were put through this.

 

[Polchinski]

Frustrating that people are so rigid in their perception of others. I think people should allow each other to adapt and change and just see them for who they are in the moment.

Thank you for putting it this way. That is exactly what I noticed too. And the other thing I was thinking was that its ironic that they say aspies are rigid when actually its the NT-s that are. Well, I guess different aspies are different, so I have no problem with changes while other aspies do. But still, even in my case, people assume I am rigid when they don't give me an opportunity to change (as in, they think I won't change anyway since I am supposedly rigid) but actually to me its them that are rigid.

So remember I talked about problems teaching at community college? Well, when I was arguing with the professors there to give me back the class, it sounded like I was talking to computers who were writing to me automated responses without reading what I wrote. For example, when I complained that I won't have enough money with one class they said "success of students is more important than financial situation". But wait a second: if they were to give a single thought to OTHER emails that I wrote, they would have known that their IMPLICATION is that the students WOULD succeed in my class. In particular, what was it that made them think that they won't? Because I came unprepared. Now, I was telling them I had long weekend ahead so I will get prepared. Logical implication of this is that the students would succeed.

Did I actually say any PHRASES pertaining to "success of the students", no. But thats what differentiates human being from computer. A computer looks at key phrases. A human being gives a THOUGHT to what is being SAID. So, a computer would say "well, there were no key phrases pertaining to success of the students" but a human being would say "the success of the students is the whole underlying context behind all this". And here is another difference between computer and a human being. A computer has pre-programmed phrases. So, even if the phrases don't actually fit into a context, the comptuer would use them anyway. Now, in this particular conversation, their response about "success of the students" wasn't exactly fitting. What would have been more fitting is a discussion as to whether or not I would be able to get prepared next time. So the fact that they even used that phrase to begin with shows that they are a bunch of computers that are using pre-programmed phrases.

Another example of their computer-like behavior was what happened at the end. So I got reviews from students, vast majority of which were positive. So I pointed out to them a contrast between the positive student reviews, that were based on dozens of classes (we had 2 classes a week from August to December) and the reports from the observations of associate dean, that were based on only THREE classes (first one was positive, the next two were negative). So that shows that the last two classes that associate dean observed were just "bad days". Because both of those classes I made mistakes that took me long time to find but associate dean never pointed them out to me, I saw them all on my own. This means that the presence of associate deal was just a coincidence. Now, I myself, based on my own standards, think that both of those classes went horribly. And if the rest of the classes would have wnt that way, there is no way I would have gotten such good reviews. So the fact that I got good reviews shows that I just "had bad days" at the time he observed me.

Now, back to the computer analogy. Their response to that email was "your thoughts had been considered". Well, have they considered my thoughts? No they haven't! So the line "your thoughts have been considered" sounds like a pre-programmed line a computer would give. Well, I knew it won't get me anywhere, but I responded to them anyway. What I wrote was "I am not trying to communicate my thoughts for the sake of thoughts, I am trying to get you to give me a class to teach". Their response was that the decision to take me away from teaching "was done with careful consideration" so they are not changing their mind about it. Well, how could they have had "careful consideration" when they didn't have complete information yet. Fact is: they made their decision BEFORE students wrote their evaluations! So they could have had the most careful consideration in the world. but it would still pertain to THREE days, not dozens of days! But again, think of a computer. A computer can have a pre-programmed line about "careful consideration", and it would keep spewing that line. In fact, "careful consideration" is often part of the pre-written rejection letter that is being sent in carbon copies to everyone.

Well, except that in my case they were NOT sending me a pre-written carbon copy of a rejection letter. Instead, they were actually RESPONDING to what I wrote. So ask yourself this question. How come a RESPONSE to what I wrote sound so similar to a PRE-WRITTEN letter? The answer is that they are a bunch of robots, so thats all they can do.