• Welcome to Autism Forums, a friendly forum to discuss Aspergers Syndrome, Autism, High Functioning Autism and related conditions.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Private Member only forums for more serious discussions that you may wish to not have guests or search engines access to.
    • Your very own blog. Write about anything you like on your own individual blog.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon! Please also check us out @ https://www.twitter.com/aspiescentral

Why are people NOT asking me why am I single

Status
Not open for further replies.

Polchinski

Active Member
I ran into the article that discusses how can you answer the question "why are you single", 33 Clever Answers For The Dreaded "Why Are You Single?" Question

Instead of reading what the article was supposed to focus, I am struck by what was NOT discussed in the article. Namely, that my situation is the OPPOSITE to the situation of the audience of the article. In particular,

1) Nobody asks me why am I single

2) I really wish they did

The fact that people don't ask me why am I single, suggests to me that they assume I am inherently undatable. Which is the exact reason why I am single: if everyone assumes I am undatable, then they would never be interested in dating me themselves, nor would they try to set me up with someone. So then it would become self fulfilling prophecy.

By contrast, the audience of that article is lucky. They are asked why they are single, so they have the opportunity right there to complain about their difficulty finding a match, and then whomever asked that question will hopefully match them up.

Oh wait a second. Maybe they don't feel that way because they are more than capable of finding a match themselves they just choose not to. Well, that again underscores how much I am worse of than they are. In my case I wish I could find someone and I can't. So I wish people could ask me why am I single and help me. But in their case they are so much more attractive than me that they CAN find a match all on their own. Yet they are getting all those offers of unwanted help, while I don't.
 
That is sort of a personal question, and some people chose to be single. There actually are quite a lot of single people.

So let me ask you, why are you single? Is this by choice?
 
I ran into the article that discusses how can you answer the question "why are you single", 33 Clever Answers For The Dreaded "Why Are You Single?" Question

Instead of reading what the article was supposed to focus, I am struck by what was NOT discussed in the article. Namely, that my situation is the OPPOSITE to the situation of the audience of the article. In particular,

1) Nobody asks me why am I single

2) I really wish they did

The fact that people don't ask me why am I single, suggests to me that they assume I am inherently undatable. Which is the exact reason why I am single: if everyone assumes I am undatable, then they would never be interested in dating me themselves, nor would they try to set me up with someone. So then it would become self fulfilling prophecy.

By contrast, the audience of that article is lucky. They are asked why they are single, so they have the opportunity right there to complain about their difficulty finding a match, and then whomever asked that question will hopefully match them up.

Oh wait a second. Maybe they don't feel that way because they are more than capable of finding a match themselves they just choose not to. Well, that again underscores how much I am worse of than they are. In my case I wish I could find someone and I can't. So I wish people could ask me why am I single and help me. But in their case they are so much more attractive than me that they CAN find a match all on their own. Yet they are getting all those offers of unwanted help, while I don't.

As someone with a marketing background, one of my first questions about anything is who is the target audience?

When I read the article, I got the impression it was written by women for women.

Virtually all organizations have some sort of mission statement, and the website that article appeared on is no exception.

Elite Daily is the ultimate digital destination for Gen Z women who are discovering the world, and themselves in the process. Elite Daily delivers authentic and relatable content across entertainment, dating, lifestyle, food, travel, astrology, fashion, and beauty.

And so the reason why you're not relating to the article is because you were / are not the target audience.
 
Nobody had ever asked me that when I was single, and if they had, it was probably because they wanted to date me and then made the statement untrue. That 'prophecy' of yours just sounds like some kind of damaging programming, although you probably won't believe me about that depending on how deep it runs. Why not just date someone who's been deemed 'undatable' by their own set of rules and break the imagined curse? Not only is a suitable match out there, but there are probably thousands of them -- near you, as well.

Sometimes we're the problem and solution for these problems, even though it hurts to admit it. You can work toward and achieve pretty much anything in this life (within reason) in a fairly short amount of time if you're dedicated.
 
By the way, the reason the article exists is because single women are often asked, usually by other women, why they're single.

It's sometimes intended as a compliment (e.g. I think you're great and you deserve to be with someone) or sometimes out of tradition (especially if the person asking is someone older and they grew up in an era or culture where people tended to marry young), but either way, it can be very awkward for those who choose to be / are happy being single.

There's also a traditional societal expectation that women are expected to get "hooked up" and an unfortunate belief that there must be "something wrong" if someone isn't "hooked up". Consider that "spinster" - a traditional word for an older unmarried woman, is a derogatory term.

On the other hand, there is no male equivalent of "spinster" - an older unmarried man is simply an (older unmarried) man. This an example of traditional sexism that has persisted through to modern society.
 
That is sort of a personal question, and some people chose to be single. There actually are quite a lot of single people.

Apparently not, since that article mentions people being asked that.

Plus also, when I bring up the subject myself (to complain about it) usually it is the others that would avoid the topic.

So let me ask you, why are you single? Is this by choice?

Because nobody ever starts a conversation with me and gets to know me. My social skills are so poor, that I would be lucky for someone to talk to me for 5 minutes, which doesn't seem to ever happen. So nobody knows me well enough to even consider dating me.

Now, the question is: why don't they ever start a conversation with me? It sounds like they are making a "default assumption" that I am unpleasant person to be around. How would they do it if they never talked to me? Maybe because I don't pay attention to the way I dress and so forth.

The reason "not being asked why I am single" bothers me is because it goes hand in hand with the default assumptions I just talked about. If the default assumption is that I shouldn't be talked to, then the other default assumption is that I shouldn't date, and thats why they don't ask me that question.

I remember many years ago I talked on facebook to a girl whom I met in church, and I casually mentioned to her one of my ex-s. She said "wait a second, you had a girlfriend?" I then confronted her: "why would you assume that I never had one? Do you think I am gay or undatable?" She then started to deny that it is either of the two and instead she said that I didn't talk about her. I told her that the reason I didn't talk about her is because we broke up a year BEFORE I came to that church. She said she didn't know that. So I pointed out to her the following. So, the information she has is that, while I was going to that church, I was single. Now there are two options. One is that I was single just that year, the other is that I was single my whole life. So why was she assuming I was single my whole life if there was no evidence to? She couldn't really give the answer other than to apologize. But, after I pushed, she said my shirt is wrinkled and I don't sit up straight. Wow. So based on those two things people would make damning assumption about my whole life that I am supposed to die single and childless?!

Incidentally, dressing neatly and sitting straight are the two things my parents kept nagging me about (along with brushing my hair, etc). But I never connected that those things are DIRECTLY related to what I was complaining about as far as being single and not having friends. If only I knew that ... Well now I know it, but I am 43 so now it is that much more difficult to address my single status.
 
There's also a traditional societal expectation that women are expected to get "hooked up"

Mathematically speaking, since the number of males and females is roughtly the same, and the pairing is monagomous, then the proportion of men hooking up should be roughtly the same as the proportion of women hooking up. So then how can they expect women to hook up without expecting men to hook up?

By the way, this relates to another question. How can women be pickier than men if, again, the number of males and females is roughtly the same, and they are to be monogamously paired? Shouldn't they be equally picky then?

Now, in case of a polygamy, both of those two things would make sense. In this case, you can pick just few men to marry off all the women, by having each of them marrying off several. And then, you would no longer have to ask the rest of the men why they are single (which would be the answer to the question in OP). And also, women would be a lot more choosy since they can only have 1 husband but a man can have several wifes.

So I guess you could say that "maybe in some ancient time we used to be polygamous, and what we see today is the historic memory of those times". But here is why this explanation won't work. Because you can't go against math. So math would force you to make the choice. One option is to "stick to historic memory" and actually be polygamous. The other option is for both genders to be equally picky and for people to match up both genders equally. But there is no mathematically non-contradictory ways to have one and not the other. You can't mathematically have women being pickier than men yet monogamously match them up. And you can't mathematically be more active in trying to match women up than you are trying to match men up, without creating polygamy.

There's also a traditional societal expectation that women are expected to get "hooked up" and an unfortunate belief that there must be "something wrong" if someone isn't "hooked up". Consider that "spinster" - a traditional word for an older unmarried woman, is a derogatory term.

On the other hand, there is no male equivalent of "spinster" - an older unmarried man is simply an (older unmarried) man. This an example of traditional sexism that has persisted through to modern society.

This is another interesting question. If we take it for a given that women are pickier than men (even though I don't understand how that is mathematically possible, but lets assume thats the case), then the woman being single would mean she is picky which means she has high quality (kind of like Harvard has high quality so it is picky with its applicants), but if a man is single then he is constantly rejected so he has low quality. Following that line of logic, there should be something wrong with the MAN being single rather than the woman being single.

And, on a flip side, if, as you say, single women were to be looked down upon more than single men, wouldn't that imply that men should become pickier? After all, women would be so desperate to undo their "spinster" status, that they would be willing to be with anyone and everyone, just to stop being the "spinster". But men, having none of such equivalent labels, would be less desperate, hence more picky. So how come in reality its the opposite and its the women that are pickier?

The other confirmation of the idea that single men do have a lower status, is the fact that some of the dating advice FOR MEN suggests that they have women around as "social proof" which would help them get more women. Now, if a single man is not lower in status, then why would the "social proof" concept work to begin with?

As a matter of fact this is one of the main reasons why, as a man, I don't want to be single. I don't want to be seen as low status. Now, don't get me wrong. I have other reasons why I don't want to be single. In particular, I want emotional support, I want to pass my genetic line, etc. But social status thing adds to it.

But, of course, given that my interactions are minimal and most of my assumptions come either from my head or from the internet, I could be totally wrong. So IF I am wrong and actually I am not seen as socially inferior, that would be great to know. I would just like your explanation as to how this is compatible with the above.
 
Last edited:
So l see what you have presented as your ideas. I am going to present a bunch more parameters to help you understand all the things that affect outcomes for men hooking up with a SO.

First, if you live in LA, it's about 5 woman to every one guy, meaning woman outnumber men there. However, l am not saying anything of what types these are. Where l live now, l think it's about even. The next thing is social norms. With woman's liberation, more woman work, and woman actually outnumber men in college enrollment. So more woman are pursuing ambitions by working and attending college then maybe 30 years ago. The traditional role of a man being the provider, and the female pregnant and imprisoned in the kitchen has fell by the wayside, then to be kicked to the curb with nothing at age 55 as a result of the court's decision. I have heard of so many horrible stories of woman back in the workforce, and the husband completely cleaned them out. I actually have two girlfriends who no longer date, because of bad dating experiences.

And stats prove this, marriages actually have decreased. Many single woman can adopt or find a sperm donor and bypass a traditional relationship. I even have read recently of woman shacking up with other woman, because they don't like their dating choices, (nonsexual). There are a lot of things have changed, and if someone asked me why l was single, l would say none of your beeswax.
 
Last edited:
Apparently not, since that article mentions people being asked that.

Plus also, when I bring up the subject myself (to complain about it) usually it is the others that would avoid the topic.

Asking someone about something and hinting at or offering to help can be a form of showing care (even if in an outmoded way). This is done out of care and good intent.

If you were to ask for suggestions, you might well get some.

But by complaining, you're not going to get responses because there is nothing polite to say. If I knew a single person who was looking for someone, I would recommend someone I knew who was kind, caring, and considerate and expressed interest in meeting new people and making friends in general. I would not recommend someone complaining about not having a partner, because their boldness in doing so suggests that their reason for wanting a partner may be motivated by ulterior motives, as opposed to someone who is genuinely wishing to find someone to share and navigate their life journey with.

Because nobody ever starts a conversation with me and gets to know me. My social skills are so poor, that I would be lucky for someone to talk to me for 5 minutes, which doesn't seem to ever happen. So nobody knows me well enough to even consider dating me.

We can't control what other people do, and we should try not to worry about such things.

But we can control what we do. If you want to talk to people, why not start the conversation yourself?

Joining a club or group is a great way to engage in safe social interaction where there are natural "icebreakers."

If speaking is challenging for you, consider joining a local Toastmasters club.

Alternatively, another way to get lots of experience fast with interacting with people is to work in retail. It can be emotionally draining though - maybe you could try getting a part time retail job where you have 2-3 half-day shifts per week?
 
Mathematically speaking, since the number of males and females is roughtly the same, and the pairing is monagomous, then the proportion of men hooking up should be roughtly the same as the proportion of women hooking up. So then how can they expect women to hook up without expecting men to hook up?

By the way, this relates to another question. How can women be pickier than men if, again, the number of males and females is roughtly the same, and they are to be monogamously paired? Shouldn't they be equally picky then?

Now, in case of a polygamy, both of those two things would make sense. In this case, you can pick just few men to marry off all the women, by having each of them marrying off several. And then, you would no longer have to ask the rest of the men why they are single (which would be the answer to the question in OP). And also, women would be a lot more choosy since they can only have 1 husband but a man can have several wifes.

So I guess you could say that "maybe in some ancient time we used to be polygamous, and what we see today is the historic memory of those times". But here is why this explanation won't work. Because you can't go against math. So math would force you to make the choice. One option is to "stick to historic memory" and actually be polygamous. The other option is for both genders to be equally picky and for people to match up both genders equally. But there is no mathematically non-contradictory ways to have one and not the other. You can't mathematically have women being pickier than men yet monogamously match them up. And you can't mathematically be more active in trying to match women up than you are trying to match men up, without creating polygamy.



This is another interesting question. If we take it for a given that women are pickier than men (even though I don't understand how that is mathematically possible, but lets assume thats the case), then the woman being single would mean she is picky which means she has high quality (kind of like Harvard has high quality so it is picky with its applicants), but if a man is single then he is constantly rejected so he has low quality. Following that line of logic, there should be something wrong with the MAN being single rather than the woman being single.

And, on a flip side, if, as you say, single women were to be looked down upon more than single men, wouldn't that imply that men should become pickier? After all, women would be so desperate to undo their "spinster" status, that they would be willing to be with anyone and everyone, just to stop being the "spinster". But men, having none of such equivalent labels, would be less desperate, hence more picky. So how come in reality its the opposite and its the women that are pickier?

The other confirmation of the idea that single men do have a lower status, is the fact that some of the dating advice FOR MEN suggests that they have women around as "social proof" which would help them get more women. Now, if a single man is not lower in status, then why would the "social proof" concept work to begin with?

As a matter of fact this is one of the main reasons why, as a man, I don't want to be single. I don't want to be seen as low status. Now, don't get me wrong. I have other reasons why I don't want to be single. In particular, I want emotional support, I want to pass my genetic line, etc. But social status thing adds to it.

But, of course, given that my interactions are minimal and most of my assumptions come either from my head or from the internet, I could be totally wrong. So IF I am wrong and actually I am not seen as socially inferior, that would be great to know. I would just like your explanation as to how this is compatible with the above.

I'm not going to answer these questions as they are on a tangent.

The main reason for women to be historically pushed into marriage was because, as @Aspychata alluded to, the vast majority of women had few income earnings opportunities. Someone who did not marry would usually be limited to things like spinning, handicrafts, being a domestic servant / maid, all of which were very low paying jobs.

In the West, the shortage of men during WWI meant that women were, for the first time, entering the workforce in mass. But societal pressures and expectations that men were breadwinners and providers meant that women were often displaced, sometimes intentionally fired so that their job could be given to a man. This happened again during the Great Depression. The argument was that women were simply working for "pin money" (e.g. spending money) and not for sustenance. This argument of course is flawed and does not account for independent women, and women with dependents to care for, which could include infirm older relatives. It was not until the post-WWII era that women would finally be entering the workforce, and staying there.

The mid-20th century, in America, also posed an shift, where for the first time, women started to enter post-secondary in significant numbers. But even then, it was still common and expected that women would eventually get married and become a homemaker / stay-at-home mom; a common joke was that women who went to college did so to get a "MRS" degree.

Granted, some women were happy to have the chance to meet a future lawyer or doctor, etc. in college, and settle down with someone with more socioeconomic potential than a man without post-secondary, but other women decided to take this liberty to be independent, and to get married either on their own terms (e.g. for love, and where they were not dependent on their husband's income), or to not get married at all.

One of the major victories of the women's rights movements of the 1960s-70s was the 1973 removal of the rule in the Irish civil service that married women needed to resign.


Today, there are more women attending and graduating from college/university than men, and of the women I have worked with, I'm proud to say that many of them are happily independent, and for those who have married a man, many are the primary breadwinner and so are not financially beholden to their husband.
 
I don't see how women being EQUAL to men in the workforce can explain DISPARITY in dating. The implicit assumption in that kind of argument is that "women are inherently more wanted than men, so men have to compensate for it by having greater income". So the question is: WHY are women more wanted? WHY do men need GREATER income in order to be EQUALLY desirable? Shouldn't EQUAL income imply EQUAL desirability?
 
I'm not going to answer these questions as they are on a tangent.

The main reason for women to be historically pushed into marriage was because, as @Aspychata alluded to, the vast majority of women had few income earnings opportunities. Someone who did not marry would usually be limited to things like spinning, handicrafts, being a domestic servant / maid, all of which were very low paying jobs.

In the West, the shortage of men during WWI meant that women were, for the first time, entering the workforce in mass. But societal pressures and expectations that men were breadwinners and providers meant that women were often displaced, sometimes intentionally fired so that their job could be given to a man. This happened again during the Great Depression. The argument was that women were simply working for "pin money" (e.g. spending money) and not for sustenance. This argument of course is flawed and does not account for independent women, and women with dependents to care for, which could include infirm older relatives. It was not until the post-WWII era that women would finally be entering the workforce, and staying there.

The mid-20th century, in America, also posed an shift, where for the first time, women started to enter post-secondary in significant numbers. But even then, it was still common and expected that women would eventually get married and become a homemaker / stay-at-home mom; a common joke was that women who went to college did so to get a "MRS" degree.

Granted, some women were happy to have the chance to meet a future lawyer or doctor, etc. in college, and settle down with someone with more socioeconomic potential than a man without post-secondary, but other women decided to take this liberty to be independent, and to get married either on their own terms (e.g. for love, and where they were not dependent on their husband's income), or to not get married at all.

One of the major victories of the women's rights movements of the 1960s-70s was the 1973 removal of the rule in the Irish civil service that married women needed to resign.


Today, there are more women attending and graduating from college/university than men, and of the women I have worked with, I'm proud to say that many of them are happily independent, and for those who have married a man, many are the primary breadwinner and so are not financially beholden to their husband.
These are all extremely valid points. Traditionally, men were looking to have sons to continue the lineage, and to pass on a family business.

Now relationships are no longer following stringent social standards but are rather more as hookups with no marriage certificate. More younger couples live together bypassing even marriage.

And l see people in later age getting married and coming together with blended families. Throw in a prenuptial contracts, and common law marriage, and the acceptance of same gender marriages, and the landscape has changed for men and woman.
 
I don't see how women being EQUAL to men in the workforce can explain DISPARITY in dating. The implicit assumption in that kind of argument is that "women are inherently more wanted than men, so men have to compensate for it by having greater income". So the question is: WHY are women more wanted? WHY do men need GREATER income in order to be EQUALLY desirable? Shouldn't EQUAL income imply EQUAL desirability?
This is a good question. I had a young male coworker tell me at my job that he was just looking for a woman to take care of him, and he wanted to be a house husband. Will he find someone? Yes, if having the personality of a wet sock will make him desirable. If more woman are busy working and going to college, then they spend less time looking for a partner. It could be something as simple as the ratio of men to available woman where you live.


A longtime ago, companies paid pensions, and families could afford children and the cost of living. Now childcare costs are astronomical, the nuclear family no longer exists to help raise the child, so woman are forced to work full-time and raise the children and some woman chose not to sign up, forgo having children, therefore aren't looking for relationships. There is less job stability, with work schedules of only part-time hours providing zero healthcare for families, and this is another consideration that woman need to account for.
 
Last edited:
Well, that again underscores how much I am worse of than they are.

I think you are using your excelient logical skills to the purpose of hurting yourself. And none of the excellent answers you have been given seems to be able to help you stop doing so.

I have selected that single sentence of what you said, to me it reflects the self hurting nature of your thinking.

Women are biologically "designed" to look for stability before being mothers. 9 months of vulnerability, and 12 to 15 years of raising a baby into an adult are very demanding. If they happen to find a man who will help them with that task is a win for them. Their child will survive.

Men are biologically "designed" to have sex every time we can with every woman we can. If we happen to fall in love and just care about one woman we LOSE. Our gens will just be passed to one child (if it happen to be ours).

So thats biology. As other apes we are "designed" to raise children tribally. By the tribe. As men are unable to be sure if the child is ours or not, we are designed to take care of all the childs and women of the tribe. Even our pennis are designed to suck out the semen of other males from the vagina before cumming. Men who cum early are considered weak, the biological reason is they have not become sure they have passed their gens to the child because they did not removed properly the pre existent semen of the vagina.

Why did we were designed to be tribal? Because no environment could sustain more than a tribe of humans. So ancient human males had sex with the women of their tribes as much as they could and all the tribe took care of the kids. When they became too many another tribe was formed.

Once too many human tribes use an ecosystem, we start killing other predators so we can have more resources. After that we start killing ourselves. Who wins? The tribe with more humans. And that's when we got away of our biology.

In order to be the biggest tribe we need to form cities, we need to raise plants and livestock...we need to become "monogamic", we need religions, we need money... And our biological design become outdated.

Once cities are created, we need empires to win over other cities. Once empires are created, we need technological supremacy to win over other empires.

And with technological supremacy, population is no longer needed to win wars. Finally we can reduce our populations and de-scalate this global war. Where is now the homo sapiens?

Women no longer need men to protect them, no longer get unwanted childs, and no longer need childs to be usefull to their tribes. They seem to be still fighting against their biological needs, but most girls of modern societies seem to be changing their behavour according to the new reality.

Men no longer need to assault almost every women to get sexual satisfaction (we firstly had prostitution in cities and now have also porn. Soon robots and AI will do that task cheaper and no humans will be used sexually). We are no longer needed as warriors-protectors and not even as money providers. We also need to find our place is this modern world.

So you are not a loser for not being selected by women.

And the answer to your question of proportions is easy: Attractive men have sex with many women and attractive women can choose any men to have sex with. Non attractive women can still be able to find men with just sexual purposes and non attractive men must pay for sex.

The men-women proportion is one to one, but the need for sex proportion is not one to one, and thus can not been satisfied by the existing women.

And the reason why you are a loser is because you have convinced yourself than your worth metric is being selected by some random women you don't even know.

As long as you believe that you will be a loser, because even if some girl accepts you and have sex with you, you will still be rejected by those other so attractive women that are choosing other so more attractive men... Even in the case you became attractive, Its just temporal and you would become a loser again quite soon.

Speaking about autism, men without social skills are never going to be as attractive to women as men with social skills.

On the other hand, men are happy to copulate with anything remotely close to a women. Social or not. Autist women are a perfect target for casual sex.

Sorry for the text wall. :)
 
I have been in a relationship that is loving, that also wasn't sexual. We lived together for 19 years. So all kinds of relationships do exist. And l believe some men on the spectrum can be very desirable but l am not NT.

Sorry, l was laughing reading your answer @Atrapa Almas .
 
First, if you live in LA, it's about 5 woman to every one guy, meaning woman outnumber men there.

I never lived in LA. Here is where I lived:

I was in Moscow, Russia, from my birth (december 1979) till 1994
I was in Berkeley, California from 1994 till 2001
I was in Minneapolis Minnesota, from 2001 to 2004
I was in Ann Arbor, Michigan from 2004 to 2009
I was in Bangalore, India from 2009 to 2011
I was in Chennai, India from 2011 to 2012
I was in Chandigarh, India from 2012 to 2014
I was in Oxford, Mississippi from 2014 to 2016
I was in Albuquerque, New Mexico from 2016 to 2022
And I am again in Berkeley, California now

I have been wondering about the places as well. I noticed that in Berkeley I was accepted the best, while in the last two places (Mississippi and New Mexico) the worst. I DID wonder how much location played the role, although I also was thinking of other factors too. In particular, what I was thikning of was:

1) When I am in Berkeley I live with my mom so she doesn't let me out of the house until I tuck in the shirt neatly and stuff like that. When I am anywhere else where my mom is not around, I am typically very messy

2) I am getting older so "dirty old man" stereotype gets more and more applicable

3) By contrast, in the past, as I looked younger, people gave me more leeway. Particularly since I used to look much younger than my age, so at 21 they thought I was still a teenager and nobody is going to be too judgemental with a teenager

4) I first left Berkeley at the exact time 911 happened, so maybe after 911 people got more cautious and less accepting

5) Since Berkeley is all about "accepting differences", they want to accept my differences as well. Now, I don't want to lump together my differences with LGBT since Bible speaks against LGBT but it doesn't speak against Asperger. But maybe other people lump those things together and thats why the people that are the most accepting of my differences are the exact people whose politics I disagree with

6) In Albuquerque in particular there are a lot of drug addicts and homeless, so people are weary around those. Now, the counter-argument to this is that, in the southern part of Berkeley there are a lot of addicts and homeless too. I guess in Berkeley it is just the southern part of town while in Albuquerque it is the whole town. But still: I have to assume that the concentration of crime in south Berkeley is the same as in Albuquerque in order to say that Berkeley has less crime thanks to its northern part. But since I can't actually compare south Berkeley to Albuquerque, I can't compare Berkeely as a whole to Albuquerque either.

7) As mentioned earlier, I dress sloppily. In Berkeley, there are a lot of hippies, so people can assume I am sloppy because I am a hippie. In Albuquerque, they probably don't have as many hippies, but they have just as many drug addicts, if not more. So in Albuquerque when they see my sloppy dress they assume I am a drug addict. Hence the reaction is different.

8) Maybe due to feminism in Berkeley, the rape rate is much lower, and thats why women are not as scared as elsewhere.

9) I remember a counselor in Mississippi told me that women won't make first move because of patriarchy, and then he said that if I want women to make first move I would be better off going to either California or New York, where people don't stick to gender roles as much. Now, none of the women in Berkeley made the first move (if they did, I wouldn't be complaining about being single). What I am taking about is basic hello, which women in Berkeley can say while elsewhere wouldn't. But maybe those two things are related in the following way. In a culture where a woman can't make a first move, she would instead make a "hint" in a form of "friendliness". The side-effect of this is that any kind of friendliness would end up being interpretted as a "hint". So what would a woman do who doesn't want to date the guy? She would avoid giving a hint by avoidnig being friendly. Hence, women are forced to be avoidant. But then take Berkeley. In Berkeley, there is no such thing as "giving a hint" because a woman who is interested is free to be blunt about it. This being the case, a woman can go ahead and be friendly without worrying about unintentional "hint". Hence, the women in Berkeley are more friendly. No, the counselor didn't tell me all that: he only talked about dating. But that was my own theorizing that I made building up from it.

10) Maybe it depends on the reputation I make for myself at various places. As in, if I am "seen around" a lot in a certain way, people assume stuff about me even when they haven't personally interacted with me. Now, since all those places are huge, one would assume its impossible for all the people in town to all know me. But could it be that somehow it does happen? Because it certainly feels that way.

11) I got that idea that "I have to get a girlfriend" in 2001, after moving from Berkeley to Minnesota. Back when I was in Berkeley before that, I wasn't that desperate. So people can sense desperation and it pushes them away.

Now, if I go with 3 and 4, then I would predict that returning to Berkeley won't help me. If I go with some other explanations, then it would.

What actually happened is that, no, women in Berkeley weren't trying to start conversation with me. BUT they weren't crossing the street to avoid me either (and in Albuquerque they often did). Case in point. I was sitting on a bench at the university checking my email. As it happened, there was a list of professors on the wall above me. A certain girl wanted to look up at what room a certain professor is, apparently. So she stood right in front of me to look it up. No, I didn't like it, but thats not the point. The point is: how come she wasn't scared to stand right in front of me where I am basically facing at her pants unless I am careful? Now, contrast it with Albuquerque: over there, they wouldn't even want to be on the same side of the road as me!!! They wouldn't want to be in the elevator with me in Albuqueque, either.

Now, if I wanted to rationalize why the women in Albuquerque cross the street when I walk and don't get into the elevator with me, I could speculate that it is because I probably give them the angry look (as I am trying to ask myself "is she going to cross the street yet again"). In fact I remember some of the times when women crossed the street or didn't get into the elevator "in response" to my look. But here is the thing. Look at how many looks I was giving to that girl in Berkeley as she was looking at that list of professors? Yet, the girl in Berkeley wouldn't move away no matter how many looks I gave her, while the girls in Albuquerque were pushed away with a mere glance.
 
Last edited:
Exactly my point. Different places, different states, different countries, different attitudes.

Minnesota actually felt rather clan like and the people weren't very approachable. New York is known as a very difficult place to meet woman.

And if you wish to attract a female, you need to bring some swag. Look nice, smell good, attractive hair style, this will increase your odds. It's like having a great resume vs a crappy resume. A good resume gets you in the door for the interview. A bad resume just gets tossed, no interview. Once you have a girlfriend, sometimes people go right back to being slobs again. I personally like to look nice for the person l see.

When l lived in AZ, yes, l was afraid of being car-jacked.
 
Also add on the invention of social media, this has people doing more superficial hookups, more remote connections, and less face to face meet ups.
 
Minnesota actually felt rather clan like and the people weren't very approachable.

Thats interesting that you said it, because my experience seems to agree with it, but that doesn't seem to be what other people said. My experience was: the initial shock of being ostracized happened precisely in Minnesota. When I moved from Minnesota to Michigan, in retrospect, I see that I it "could have been" better. But, by that time, my attention was firmly focused on dating sites -- thanks for the way they rejected me in Minnesota's Hillel. So I would never know just how nice things would have been in Michigan Hillel if only I were to actually go there. When I was there the first time, three girls tried talking to me, while I was stupidly obsessing over a Minnesota girl that just broke up and was being quiet. If only I were to reply to them ...

But anyway, back to what you were saying. While my experience agrees, it seems like other people disagree. Because when I first moved to Michigan, I remember sitting in the restaurant talking to the older lady, and she mentioned to me how midwest as a whole is friendly, and Minnesota is especially friendly. I was thinking to myself "oh really? In Minnesota they rejected me!" By contrast, I heard some people say that California is rude. And in fact I once saw an online rating of friendliness of states, and Minnesota was right among the most friendly ones while California was among the most rude ones.

One thing I am thinking though is this. Since I am naturally-rude due to Asperger, if I go to a rude state I am accepted: after all, I am not the only one who is rude. But if I am going to a friendly state I am rejected: since nobody else is ever that rude there. So, lets make the scale where 0 is rude, 100 is the most friendly. Lets say that Minnesota is 85, California is 60, while my Asperger makes me 30. So if I go to California, I am being 30 instead of 60, which is bad. But if I go to Minnesota, I am being 30 instead of 85, which is far worse. So, in California, they are only slightly upset at me (for being 30 instead of 60), and so they respond by being 40 instead of 60. But in Minnesota they are a whole lot upset at me (for being 30 instead of 85), and so they punish me by being 20 instead of 85. And so I end up experiencing 20-level treatment in Minnesota and 40-level treatment in California. Which is the reverse of everyone else's experience, who experiences 85 level treatment in Minnesota and 60 level treatment in California.

But then again, you are telling me that I am not the only one who feels California is friendlier. So maybe thats not it. If, instead, I go with your theory, then could it be that "more clannish" people, in Minnesota, would appear more friendly towards someone who can "naturally infiltrate", while less friendly towards someone who can't? One thing I know about me, which I regard as a good thing, is that I am not team player. Even in physics, whenever I try to join a specific area of physics, I get quickly tired that they are "brainwashed" by specific train of thought. I like to be a free thinker. Same goes with politics or anything else. So could it be that. in order to make friends in Minnesota, one shouldn't say "hey I am going to Minneapolis" but instead one has to say "I am going to this specific group of friends that do this specific thing in Minneapolis", and then they accepted by those specific people? So since that is precisely what I "won't" do, thats why I didn't like Minnesota too much?

Now, I am not saying that's the case, I am only trying to speculate if thats what you meant. DID YOU? If not, please let me know what else you meant.

Now, the clannish attitudes that I noticed, happened several years AFTER I left Minnesota. For example, I had that kind of feeling when I visitted Perimeter Institute in Canada (that is in Waterloo). But in Minnesota it really didn't feel that way.

But then again, could it be that I am socially unaware. And actually Minnesota was even more clannish than Perimeter Institute, and I just didn't notice it?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

New Threads

Top Bottom