Relationship versus friendship

[Polchinski]

Now, let me give you a different example, from 10 years ago. In that other example, I first interacted with ACTUAL robot, and after that with human beings. Yet the behavior of human beings and the robot looked extremely similar.

So there is a website www.arxiv.org where scientists, after getting endorsed from one of the members, can post their research. The way its set up is that its not peer reviewed, thats why usually people after sending it there send it to peer reviewed journals. The purpose of arxiv is to basically get it out to the community faster, while you wait for journals to approve whatever you are sending. Well in my case when I am sending to journals my papers are typically getting rejected because my ideas are unconventional. So in my case i have 30 papers on arxiv and only 7 of them got published in journals. The last 6 out of those 7 were published AFTER the incident I am describing, so back then I only had 1 paper published in a journal, and I had probably 20 or so in the arXiv (after that my arXiv posting significaltly slowed down thanks to the incident I am about to describe). So I agree that 20 papers on arXiv with only 1 of them published in a journal looks a bit suspicious as in maybe the person keeps writing nonesense and thats why journals never publish it. But thats not what started that incident. What started it is something ELSE, that I am about to describe.

So here is what happened. The way arXiv is set up is that if you submit paper on Monday through Thursday, it would be published next working day. But if you submit it either Friday, Saturday, or Sunday, you got to wait till Tuesday to get it published (remember how Monday papers would also get published on Tuesday due to the "next day" thing, so basically what I am saying is that submitting paper on Friday is effectively the same as submitting it on Monday). That plus also you have to submit it by a certain time. So basically I needed to submit it by a certain time on Thursday in order not to have to wait few more days to see it. Now, in the Abstract to that paper, I decided to make reference to one of the other papers. But I didn't have internet access at that time, so I put stars (as in ******) in order to remind myself to fill it out with reference. But then, as I was in a hurry to submit it by that specific time on Thursday, I forgot to take out those stars. So I submitted it, with those stars, and literally 30 seconds later it was put on hold.

Now, if it took only 30 seconds to put it on hold, then CLEARLY it was done by a computer, in a LITERAL sense of the word. I mean, that website is worldwide. So no human being would have such a superpower as to look through all the papers that were submitted worldwide and notice something within 30 seconds. On the other hand, if computer did it, then yes it makes perfect sense. Computer has some things it is being "triggered" by, and its no surprise if those things include stars or other symbols that just shouldn't be there (especially not in the abstract).

So what was my reaction to it? My reaction was to contact the arXiv team. Basically I thought to myself "I need to get ahold of a live human being, and they will take that paper off hold". I was sure that ANY "live human being" would be more than happy to help me out since its CLEARLY an accident, which any "live human being" can understand. Now imagine my surprise when this did NOT happen. I got response from said "live human beings", and guess what: they sounded just like robots! What they told me was basically that some papers are being put on hold routinely and I should just wait. I then wrote to them that in my case it is OBVIOUS that the reason the paper is on hold is none other than those stars, so why not just get rid of those stars and take it off hold?! But they simply re-iterated that I have to wait without even addressing what I told them. If THAT doesn't sound robotic to you, I don't know what is.

Well, few days later that paper DID get taken off hold and was published. So I assumed "finally the issue got solved, happy end". Ah no! The REST of my papers were routinely put on hold EVER SINCE. So, naturally, that made me suspect that the computer blacklisted my name when it saw those stars. So, again, I contacted "live people" to explain what happened and asked them to take my name off of blacklist. But those "live people" gave me seeminly robotic response that "some papers are put on hold sometimes" and I should just be patient. I again pointed out to them that its not about "some papers", rather in my case NONE of the papers were EVER put on hold UP UNTIL that incident with stars and AFTER that incident EVERY SINGLE ONE was put on hold. So clearly my name was blacklisted, clearly due to the stars, and they can just fix it by removing it from blacklist. Well, they never even acknowledge anything I was saying. They were just reiterating about "some papers". That again make them sound like robots.

Then I had my former thesis advisor write to them. And then they told him something that sounds a lot less robotic. In particular they said to him that my papers are unprofessional and listed some ways how. For example they mentioned how I don't make as many references as other people, I make spelling/grammer errors, and also my papers don't get published in journals. And they said they will help me out this time but if I continue to write unprofessional papers they will blacklist me again. Well, they didn't hold to their word because my papers continued to be put on hold after that exchange. But at least they said "something", unlike me.

So that makes it seem like people are largely robots. They have some non-robotic aspects to them, but they hide it, especially from people they don't trust. So if they don't trust me, they are robots.

 

[Polchinski]

And lets go back to friendships and relationships. Consider the following rules:

1) First impression tells the most. Some studies show that first impression is based on just 30 seconds of interaction. But even if it wasn't, even the first day of interaction is minuscule compared to the rest of the life. Yet they base it on it. Actually, one image that comes to mind when I think of "first impressions" is baseball. Whoever runs faster, whoever throws the ball first, tahts the one who makes good first impression. I am rather clumsy, I am bad at sports, so I don't make good first impression. But they are more concerned with sport performance than actual person with actual feelings.

2) The phrases such as "I think of you as a sister" or "I think of you as a brother" basically imply "I won't date you". But why is that? Thinking of you as a sister or a brother would imply feeling really close, in fact so close that you want to exaggerate just how close you feel. If thats the case, wouldn't it imply that I WOULD date said person? Yet the rules say the opposite.

3) Nice guys finish last. Again, wouldn't common sense say that nice guys SHOULD be the ones to date? Yet the rule says the opposite.

4) Intuitively, the word "homely" should imply that "I feel at home with that person", which is a positive thing. Yet on practice it means ugly. Why is that?!

5) Once you are put into a friend zone you can't get out. Again, the concept of a "zone" and that "rule" sounds like a computer program, doesn't it. And the concept that friendship somehow precludes relationship makes no sense (see 2) but you can program a computer to believe that stuff.

Now, if you program a computer, you CAN program said computer to obey those four rules. Because computer has no feelings. So computer doesn't see how those rules contradict said feelings. So you can tell computer that "like a sister/brother" means I would date you, or you can tell computer that it means I wouldn't. You can tell computer that "homely" means beautiful, or you can tell computer that "homely" means ugly. Computer is fine either way, as long as the program is consistent. As it stands, the society programmed people to think of 2 and 4 in a negative ways rather than positive. Fine. People are computers. So they learned that 2 and 4 mean negative things.

In fact I actually been asking people why would the phrase "I think of you as a sister/brother" means I wouldn't date you rather than I would, and why "homely" means ugly rather than beautiful. For the most part, they couldn't even understand why I was asking it, and were simply telling me that its just how things are. Well, thats exactly what computer would say if you ask a computer why it follows a certain program (if computer could speak, that is). So that again confirms my feelings that people act like computers.

Speaking of rule number 1, it sounds similar to what happened to me in community college in terms of "few incidents" outweighing vast majority of time. Observations by associate dean were about 3 days. Student reviews were about multiple days. First impression is about 1 day. Subsequent interaction is about multiple days. So the philosophy that "good student reviews don't matter because of bad observations by associate dean" is similar to the philosophy that "subsequent behavior doesn't matter because of bad first impression". Since you saw how people in the community college sound robot-like, that suggests that first impression rule is robot-like too. And indeed its true: you can program the game into a computer where you strike out if you do one of the things badly and then it doesn't matter what happens after you strike out. A computer won't have any problem following that program since a computer has no emotion. So if people have no emotion and just follow programs, then sure they will do that too.

 

[Polchinski]

Now, there are some other examples that are more benigh. For example, I am in the habbit of studying in the restaurant, like order food and then study for hours. Now, at university study halls sometimes students put their head on a table and sleep for few minutes. Back in 2001 I did the same thing in the restaurants, and was told not to. Now, in this particular case, it didn't hurt me. After all, unlike other situations, they didn't kick me out. They simply told me what to change. Fine. I changed it, problem solved.

But, being a curious person that I am, I decided to ask other people as to why they have such a rule in place. Nobody could give me a logical answer. The closest to an "attempted" answer was that if I sleep they would think I am sick and they would be obligated to provide me help. But it makes no sense: because if I was sick, then asking the sick person to leave won't make their sickness go away. And if someone is not sick, then allowing them to keep sleeping won't suddenly create a sickness. Yet nobody even tried to counter that argument. They just kept reiterating that sleeping there is not allowed.

Well, simply citing a rule is, again, computer-like thinking. In that particular situation, the rule didn't kick me out, it just told me to change, so I wasn't hurt. But in a different situation, such as in community college, or in arXiv, or in dating, it DID kick me out, very much so. Thats why I feel like I am just victim of rules.

And then with other things like politics its the same thing. Think of all those different topics, such as guns, abortion, homosexuality, racial issues, COVID, etc. What do they have to do with each other? Logic says nothing. But statistics says A LOT. Because if you ask someone about their opinion on just ONE of those issues, you can guess whether that person is Republican or Democrat, and from that you can deduce their opinion on all the rest of those issues. Logically, it makes no sense. But if people are computers, then it does. There are two programs: a "republican program" and a "democrat program". By asking one question, you can see what "program" said computer is being "ran by", and predict what said computer say with regards to all the rest of the questions.

 

[Polchinski]

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.

Yeah, that makes sense. My connections were a lot more short lived. They didn't last long enough for anyone's relationship status to change. They simply didn't really pick up from the get-go.

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.

For NT-s its not usually conscious either. So then maybe masking-aspies and NT-s are alike in that particular respect, they are just different in a sense that aspies need to work much harder to successfully mask, or something like that?

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.

If you get along with people both much older and much younger, then I guess my age might not be as central as I thought it was? Could it be that what happens is that people simply don't like me, and then they rationalize it by citing my age? One example that comes to mind is a church, where people come in all ages: younger, same age, older. Well, same age people wouldn't talk to me either, and even 50 year olds wouldn't talk to me. I remember a few examples where 70 year olds did. Which made me think back to the idea that in American culture older age implies inferiority (in contrast to Russian culture where older age is superior) and thats why if I am inferior due to Asperger then I would be "matched up" with 70 year olds who are inferior due to their age?

But even the 70 year olds talking to me are select few. I tend to alternate between 5 different churches, and there is one church where the vast majority are 60, 70 and even 80. Well, in that church they don't tlak to me either. Now here is a kicker. So I invited someone from my Bible study, who is 20, to come to that church. I myself didn't attend it for few months, was too busy in school. Then when I came there few months later, I was surprised he was still going there. Now, he was going regularly for lunch with an old lady who was 70 or 80, and apparently in that company there was some other lady in her 30-s, and a few other people probably older. Well guess what: he didn't invite me. So why would a 20 year old and 80 year old go together for lunch, while 40 year old not be invited with them? So apparently its not just age.

But then at the same time the age thing I didn't just make up. Its something that people DID tell me. So could it be that they didn't like me for other things, and then they rationalized it by citing the age?

Or here is even better theory. Could it be that when you have one isolated negative -- either JUST Asperger or JUST age -- then they can overlook it, but when you have an interplay of negatives, then one negative sort of confirms in their mind the other negative. Logically, there is no connection. But people don't think logically so they just assume that there is?

 

[Polchinski]

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!

I am definitely in favor of putting pieces back together. Unlike most people, I strongly believe in trying to fix things. So I hope you do find the way to put pieces back together. Even more so, I hope you can restore everything you destroyed.

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.

I am glad you agree with me on this one. A lot of people act like its my fault of I don't dress well, without stopping to ask themselves WHY is it so important and WHY should person's character be judged this way?

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.

Unlike other aspies, I don't have sensory issues. So, for me, any dress is comfortable. Its not so much about the comfort but really about the time. If I want to just get out of the house, I don't feel like spending 15 minutes tidying up. That, plus also sometimes I simply don't see all the ways in which I am sloppy. Like when I am at my mom's place, she points out all kinds of stuff I would never see myself. And then I get mad at her for keeping me there tidying up for 20 minutes when I wanted to leave.

However, to counter all that, I remember one occasion when, in the middle of university, I noticed that food was spilled across my shirt or something like that, and I felt like I HAD TO drop everything, find the nearest bathroom, and clean myself up. It was actually a bit inconvenient (I don't remember if it was right before the class was about to start or something) but I felt like I HAD to do it.

Now, the thing is that those types of situations are very rare. So what that tells me is that I simply "don't see" those types of things. If I see them, then I would be the first one wanting to fix it. But usually I don't see them. And thats why I am usually just get mad at everyone else for judging me "for no reason" or for my mom stopping me from leaving the house, again "for no reason". So I guess its partly a self awareness thing.

Another example of this sort of thing is my voice. A lot of people were telling me that my voice is too loud and thats what puts people off. My usual reaction to that is "its not fair! why are they judging me for something I can't control, like my voice?!" But then, just 2 weeks ago, I was talking to one of the professors with whom I am working on my thesis, and I noticed how I kept talking loudly and he kept responding quietly. And I thought to myself "oh wow, he must be a super understanding guy that he would speak in such a quiet manner when he is basically being yelled at". Well of course I knew why: he probably understands that its my natural voice and I had no control over it. But it was amazing that he understood it. Well, he knows me for 20 years, so of course he does. Still amazing though.

Well, how come I was surprised that he understood it, yet all the other times I get mad that other people don't? I guess its because this particular time I noticed my own voice, and all the other times I don't notice it.

And this is similar to the shirt example. How one particular time I noticed that shirt was dirty and I had to wash it, while all the other times I didn't notice it.

But, even though I logically understand that I need to improve my self awarenness, here is one thing I can't get around: since I haven't done it before, I lost the best years of my life. And thats why I am so bitter about it. Since I can't "undo" my mistakes of not paying attention to my appearance in the past, the only way to "undo" it is for people to ignore my age so that I can pretend to be 20 again and have a redo. But they don't want to ignore my age, hence my bitterness about it.

 

[Polchinski]

the bigger issue is that most folks seem to have a very poor impression of homeless people,

Actually, I think this is justified.

Over a decade ago, I did postdoc in India, and I was scammed by a pastor there. A pastor basically told me that if I help him buy a land for an orphanage, he would take pictures of that land, and use those pictures to collect donations to build an actual orphanage. So, what he told me is that I pay him just for the land, not the building. Others would pay him for the building, and he would use that money to first return the money that I gave him for a land, and then pay me four times more as a gratitude, and only after that use it to build the orphanage. Since I was desperate to pay off American credit card, I fell for it. I never got money back. Instead, he kept asking me for more and more money to buy him plane tickets to "finalize the deal", etc. etc. etc.

Well, long story short, he finally admitted that what he said wasn't completely true. Yet he never admitted that he lied. Why not? Because "it was done to help the orphans" and "if I were to tell you the truth, you wouldn't have paid me money, and how would my poor orphans be". He actually shown me the new orphans and new place he bought for them. So yes, that part WAS true. THe part that was a lie was that he would be paying me back first.

Now, the fact that he actually did it for orphans rather than for himself made me angry at him EVEN MORE. Here is why. If he were to do it for himself, it would mean he knows its wrong, he is just selfish. Makes sense. I am selfish too sometimes. But if he does it for orphans, then it means that "he thinks he is doing the right thing", and THAT is what pisses me off. It pisses me off that he doesn't understand the basic facts such as "just because I came from America doesn't mean I am rich", "Even if I was rich, I am under no obligation to help the poor", "the idea of helping the poor is not a justification to FORCE someone to help them by lying". So the fact that his sense of morality is so radically different from mine to the point that he thinks he is doing the right thing, THATS what pisses me off the most.

Now, when I think of homeless people, they have similar sense of morality to that guy. No, those homeless people don't ask me to pay 4000 dollars the way that guy did. They only ask for "60 cents" or whatever the came might be. But the point is that they have similar philosophy. They also believe that somehow I am under obligation to help them when I am not.

The other aspect of the philosophy that unites the homeless with that guy is that they don't have a sense of an individual. If we all are just one big family, then sure its somehow my moral obligation to help those orphan kids, and its also my moral obligation to help the homeless. But if I am an individual then I am under no obligation to do either.

One thing I heard about India -- in a totally different context -- is that their mentality is more communal and western mentality is more individualistic. So I am wondering whether that Indian mentality is what is partly responsible for that guy thinking that he did the right thing.

However, the people at the institute in India where I did my postdoc at were Indian too and they were mad at that guy. So that shows that at least "some" indians would agree with me on this one. But then again, at the institute they are at the top of the society and, unlike much of the rest of the country, they spoke English to each other, not Hindi. So maybe they were westernized Indians. I am genuinely wondering whether more typical Indians would side with me or that guy.

Going back to the homeless people in America, here is something else that comes to mind. Back when I was undergraduate, I took the biology class that was called "mind, brain and behavior". They used the book "phantoms in the brain" if I remember it correctly, which is basically a popular book (it was a course for Freshman who are not science majors) so they just told us some fun facts. It had a lot of focus on Eastern religions (I believe the author was Romachandrin, either of this book or something else) and they told us how they found certain parts of the brain that is responsible for spirituality and how people of varying religions (particularly Eastern religions) when they look at their religious symbols, is activated. But, apart from that, they also told us that when you use drugs, that part of the brain gets activated too! So basically what that means is that the experience of homeless people who do drugs and the experience of Indians who do Hinduism goes back to the same part of the brain! Now, what does Hinduism teach them? It teaches that "we are all one", thats why I am somehow obligated to help those orphans. And how do homeless act? They also act like "we are all one", thats why when they ask me for money they are calling me their "brother". And in both cases, that belief that "we are all one" somehow, in their minds, makes me obligated to help them. See what I am getting at?

What pisses me off the most about homeless is their MENTALITY. They don't think they are lying. They GENUINELY feel like the other people SHOULD help them. Even when they lie about "wanting the money for a bus" when they really want drugs. Somehow it doesn't feel like they lie. It feels like they actually believe they want a money "for the bus", since their confused drugged-up mind no longer makes the distinction between the lies and reality.

Speaking of busses, a couple of years ago in Albuquerque they made busses free. So all those homeless people are no longer asking me for "money for the bus". Sometimes I am wondering whether THAT was the reason that they did it. I don't know if it was or not. But I wouldn't be surprised if it was. Well, me personally, I don't mind at all paying a dollar for MY OWN bus ride. But I surely DO get mad when homeless asks me to give them a dollar (or even 60 cents) for it. So I am surely happy that busses are free so that those homeless people no longer bother me in that particular way.

But in any case, I derailed. Back to what you were saying. Basically our conversation went like this:

ME: Its really frustrating that people think I am homeless when I am not

YOU: People should just stop looking down at the homeless altogether

Well I don't buy that response. Because I remember people offering me money or a burger "just to be nice" and it pissed me off just as much. Fact is: I am not homeless so I shouldn't be perceived as such. Even if they aren't "looking down at me" but instead are "being nice".

I guess I realize that this counter-argument is not good one because part of why I don't like them to "be nice" is because I realize that they are "being nice in a condescending way", due to the fact that "in general" homeless are being looked down upon.

Still, however, I am more in favor of changing facts than changing attitude towards said facts. Because another example would be "its okay if people aren't friends with you, you should just like yourself". Well, no, I want to have friends. So in other words, I want "facts": I want to have friends, I want people to know I am not homeless. I don't want to replace facts with "learnig to live with stuff", as in "its okay not to have friends" and "its okay to be seen as homeless". I hope you see what I mean.

 

[Polchinski]

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.

I guess what you are saying is that having kids is one of the obligations that you have towards your romantic partner, so by deciding to not have a romantic partner you free yourself from that obligation. Well, I see it differently. To me, having kids is an obligation to myself: I don't want my genetic line to end. So, freeing myself from having a partner doesn't free myself from that obligation that I have "to myself".

To stress that point even further, lets say that I find a potential partner who doesn't want kids. That would be a deal breaker for me. Because then I won't be able to fulfill my obligation to myself. If having kids is an obligation for the partner, then them not wanting kids would free me from that obligation, so its one problem less. But if it is an obligation to self, then I can't really be set free from it by simply having a partner who doesn't want kids.

And, going back to relationship vs friendship. If various things are obligations to a partner, then replacing relationship with friendship would free you from ALL those obligations, so its great. But if SOME of them are obligations to self (be it kids or anything else), then replacing partner with friend won't free you from those self-obligations. You would still feel unfulfilled until you accomplish them.

I am horrible at reading between the lines, so I might have misunderstood you, and correct me if I did. But, based on what you are saying, it seems like you see kids and other things as mainly obligations "for the other person". And that is probably why for you restricting yourself to friendships is a solution. But in my case I see kids as obligation to self, and thats why for me its not.

Now that I type this, something else occurred to me. You mentioned how you used to be a people pleaser. I am wondering: could it be that being people pleaser for many years made you ultimately unaware, or at least less conscious, of your own needs? If so, could "that" be why you are thinking of a relationship as mostly "expectations of your partner" as opposed to "self-expectations you have of yourself"? Because the concept of "self expectation" (such as the idea that you "have" to have kids) is coupled to the concept of a strong opinion. But you are very used to ignoring your own opinions (especially strong ones), so maybe thats why you got to the point where those opinions are just not your focus any more?

The other question to ask yourself is: what would happen if down the road you regret your decision? Would you be able to fix it? I guess you could always adapt kids. But when it comes to actually continuing your own biological line, you won't be able to do that past the age of 50 or so. So it is something to consider ahead of time and prevent those kinds of regrets.

 

[Rodafina]

guess what you are saying is that having kids is one of the obligations that you have towards your romantic partner, so by deciding to not have a romantic partner you free yourself from that obligation.

No no no. Not what I’m saying at all. Having children is not something that I want. Full stop.

Doing it as an obligation to anybody sounds horrifying. I don’t feel obliged to have children, I don’t want them, and at the same time I am currently uninterested in finding a romantic partner. Keep in mind, I am an atheist and there is no significance in marriage as it pertains to having children.

It’s going to take me a long time to read through your other responses. You are right, you are long-winded! But please note, that is an observation and an agreement with what you said. Not a criticism.

 

[Rodafina]

The other question to ask yourself is: what would happen if down the road you regret your decision?

I won’t regret it. I am sure.

…you won't be able to do that past the age of 50 or so.

50?? Do you know that I am a woman? 50 would be a bit old to have a child.

 

[Polchinski]

No no no. Not what I’m saying at all. Having children is not something that I want. Full stop.

Doing it as an obligation to anybody sounds horrifying. I don’t feel obliged to have children, I don’t want them,

Is it partly because you know you are autistic so you are worried that your kids might be? But if you stick with neurodiversity viewpoint you will see that being autistic isn't "worse" than being NT. If anything, autistics give unique contributions to society: for instance some people speculate that Einstein was autistic. So then why wouldn't you want to have autistic kids then?

But then again, it was a bit presumptious of me when I assumed that autism is the reason. Maybe it is other things, such as not wanting to go through pregnancy and through labor. If thats the case, then I understand. I just asked about autism aspect to make sure.

Keep in mind, I am an atheist and there is no significance in marriage as it pertains to having children.

It is interesting that you cited your atheism as a reason not to be concerned about children. Because I had some conversations with Christians when I would complain about the prospect of not having children and they would tell me "don't worry about having children, just serve the Lord". That kind of response always got me really angry.

I understand where they are coming from though: because in the Bible there are some verses where Jesus spoke about not being concerned about earthly things, as a matter of fact when I first came to Christ I noticed those passages all on my own and they bothered me a lot (for example I was asking myself questions such as "am I not being true Christian if I worry about food").

However, its one thing if I read the Bible on my own and ask myself those kinds of questions, and its quite another thing if others are telling me those things. ESPECIALLY if those people plan to have a family themselves, or already have one. Why are they not applying those passages to themselves or their friends, yet they are applying them to me? That just sounds like they think I shouldn't have kids because of my Asperger and just using those passages as an excuse.

But, back to what you were saying. I just think its interesting that you cited atheism as a reason not to worry about kids while other people I talked to cited Christianity as a reason why I shouldn't.

However, another thing I noticed is that when I watch youtube videos by Russian Orthodox, they are all in favor of having family. The Christians that told me not to worry about it were American Protestants. So I am wondering whether its a difference between Protestantism and Orthodoxy.

Or it could be cultural thing too. Because there was one time where I went to a Bible study composed of Protestants that immigrated from Russia (in Russia vast majority are Orthodox but there are few that are Protestants so those were part of those few). Anyway, I been to that group only like 5 times, and there were at least TWO people trying to set me up with someone.

Seeing that they were Protestants, that points to the fact that it might not be Orthodoxy vs Protestantism but Russia vs America thing.

But then again, my mom had an American friend who offered to set me up with someone. So maybe its not about Russia vs America either but rather the person has to be my friend to care. In case of that American lady she was my mom's friend. In case of everyone else, they weren't my friends, unless they were Russian which created natural bond.

What country are you from by the way? The idea that "atheist wouldn't care about kids" would fit better into the Russian context than American one, seeing that Russian Christians care about kids more than American Christians. You don't have to be from Russia-proper. I mean Ukraine or Poland is all basically Russia even if they don't want to admit that.

 

[Polchinski]

50?? Do you know that I am a woman? 50 would be a bit old to have a child.

The age of menopause differs case by case, so some women have it late 40-s, even though its rare. Thats why I cited 50. I actually heard one woman who had a kid at 60 and they thought she was a grandma. But of course it was one woman out of thousands.

For men I wouldn't be citing 50 in that way. A man in his 80-s can have kids. The problem, of course, is that he would have to attract a woman in her 40-s and that is unrealistic, unless he becomes very rich. But I guess, for a man, he can plan on becoming a millionare by his 80-s, so it won't be completely irreversible. But for a woman, she won't have loopholes like that.

 

[Rodafina]

But then again, it was a bit presumptious of me when I assumed that autism is the reason.

Yes you were presuming. That is not the reason.

It is interesting that you cited your atheism as a reason not to be concerned about children.

I cited my atheism trying to explain why I do not believe one must be married to have children.

Being an atheist has nothing to do with the fact that I do not want children.

 

[Rodafina]

The age of menopause differs case by case, so some women have it late 40-s, even though its rare. Thats why I cited 50. I actually heard one woman who had a kid at 60 and they thought she was a grandma. But of course it was one woman out of thousands.

For men I wouldn't be citing 50 in that way. A man in his 80-s can have kids. The problem, of course, is that he would have to attract a woman in her 40-s and that is unrealistic, unless he becomes very rich. But I guess, for a man, he can plan on becoming a millionare by his 80-s, so it won't be completely irreversible. But for a woman, she won't have loopholes like that.

Well, I don’t know what you know. It is always beneficial not to make assumptions. I do understand how these things work.

 

[Polchinski]

Well, I don’t know what you know. It is always beneficial not to make assumptions. I do understand how these things work.

It sounds like you feel like I attacked you for not wanting marriage and kids. If so, that was miscommunication. I had no reason to attack you for it because your decision about your life has no impact on my life.

Do I feel bad for you? Yes, I can't help that, cause I tend to picture myself in other peoples shoes and ask myself "what would I feel as an afterthought if I were to make that decision".

But feeling bad for the other person is not the same as feeling angry at them. I am only angry at people that impact me negatively (whether it be people that rejected me job-wise or dating-wise, or people that tried to scam me, etc). Since you don't fall into any of those categories, I have no reason to attack you or be angry at you.

I am sorry if what I wrote you came across as a personal attack. I didn't mean it to be.

 

[Rodafina]

It sounds like you feel like I attacked you for not wanting marriage and kids. If so, that was miscommunication. I had no reason to attack you for it because your decision about your life has no impact on my life.

Do I feel bad for you? Yes, I can't help that, cause I tend to picture myself in other peoples shoes and ask myself "what would I feel as an afterthought if I were to make that decision".

But feeling bad for the other person is not the same as feeling angry at them. I am only angry at people that impact me negatively (whether it be people that rejected me job-wise or dating-wise, or people that tried to scam me, etc). Since you don't fall into any of those categories, I have no reason to attack you or be angry at you.

I am sorry if what I wrote you came across as a personal attack. I didn't mean it to be.

Thank you so much for saying this! I really and truly appreciate it. I didn’t feel attacked, though. Just misunderstood. I admit that it has been a little bit difficult for me to keep up with all the messages because I process things slowly. So a couple things, one. I didn’t feel attacked, so no worries there. Two, thank you, regardless, your ability to have accountability for yourself and think of my experience is very awesome.

 

[Polchinski]

Thank you so much for saying this! I really and truly appreciate it. I didn’t feel attacked, though. Just misunderstood. I admit that it has been a little bit difficult for me to keep up with all the messages because I process things slowly. So a couple things, one. I didn’t feel attacked, so no worries there. Two, thank you, regardless, your ability to have accountability for yourself and think of my experience is very awesome.

Thank you so much for saying this. I think we both misunderstood each other. I probably misread the tone of your replies. At some point our wires got crossed. But I am so glad we are clearing this up.