• 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 would a man use a lot of innuendo?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Gerontius

Well-Known Member
V.I.P Member
If someone laughs at a sexual innuendo (assuming it is not a laugh in derision), that is clearly a "green light" to continue using that context.
Not necessarily--Some people laugh out of being uncomfortable. People are pretty complex.
 

Jonn

Well-Known Member
V.I.P Member
As l said, men's logic can be hard to figure out. So we all just speculate. Sometimes l throw situations out and ask people for their thoughts too.
As always, never completely trust a stranger.
We autistics, in particular, need to realise this.

Maintain scepticism, but jumping to conclusions isn't a rational thing to do.
 

Judge

Well-Known Member
V.I.P Member
What seems to be getting lost here is the one common denominator that cannot be ignored.

That what the perpetrator did was unacceptable, no matter what motivated him to do it. We can condemn him or pity him, but in the eyes of a great many people what he did was fundamentally unacceptable by any metric in the 21st century.
 

Gerald Wilgus

Well-Known Member
V.I.P Member
But in this case, the man isn't interested in establishing a relationship with Primrose, so there is no indication that his intention was malicious/exploitative.
@Jonn , the OP stated that he was not interested in NORMAL conversation and went back to his innuendo. You misread and then weave together speculation about his innocence, as unfounded as what you accuse others of doing. I daresay you are quite naive. I bet you are the defense's favorite juror.
 
Last edited:

Jonn

Well-Known Member
V.I.P Member
Or just ignore him. He will try harder if he truly wants something. Inaction is usually best. Because then they doubt themselves. I am not saying l have any experience, it's just that life kinda of forced it's self on me.
I believe Primrose has established the guy doesn't want a relationship/anything beyond what is happening now.
It is up to Primrose to decide if she does or does not want it to continue.
I think it has been established she wants it to stop.
 

Jonn

Well-Known Member
V.I.P Member
What seems to be getting lost here is the one common denominator that cannot be ignored.

That what the perpetrator did was unacceptable, no matter what motivated him to do it. We can condemn him or pity him, but in the eyes of a great many people what he did was fundamentally unacceptable by any metric in the 21st century.
"Perpetrator" has a negative connotation and is undeserved atm because we don't know his motivation.
perpetrator
/ˈpəːpɪtreɪtə/

noun
  • 1. a person who carries out a harmful, illegal, or immoral act:
This sort of misrepresentation is common, but it doesn't make it right.

"Flirting" is not a crime (yet).
Many may find his actions unacceptable but are they being reasonable?
I don't believe so because we don't know his motivation.

Also, consider:
What some seem to be overlooking is the FACT that Primrose was originally amused by his innuendo.
She laughed.
He was given the "green light" to continue.
She even approached him, but he was not "interested" in taking it further.

This is not "victim shaming". It is simply stating a matter of fact.
Primrose did nothing wrong.
But it is in black type in this thread and can be readily referred to.

I suggest people give this serious consideration.

Crucifixion is not warranted...yet. ;)
 

Gerald Wilgus

Well-Known Member
V.I.P Member
I'd be surprised if he doesn't stop.
If someone complains to management, he may be refused membership because he is making others uncomfortable and chasing away business.
Or he may stop because he genuinely takes on board that Primrose doesn't like it.

There are a lot of disreputable people out there, but there are also decent individuals too, obviously.
Decent people do not make suggestive remarks to women in a public venue. If NT, you can bet he is doing it deliberately.
 

Aspychata

Serenity waves, beachy vibes
V.I.P Member
"Perpetrator" has a negative connotation and is undeserved atm because we don't know his motivation.

This sort of misrepresentation is common, but it doesn't make it right.

"Flirting" is not a crime (yet).
Many may find his actions unacceptable but are they being reasonable?
I don't believe so because we don't know his motivation.

Also, consider:
What some seem to be overlooking is the FACT that Primrose was originally amused by his innuendo.
She laughed.
He was given the "green light" to continue.
She even approached him, but he was not "interested" in taking it further.

This is not "victim shaming". It is simply stating a matter of fact.
Primrose did nothing wrong.
But it is in black type in this thread and can be readily referred to.

I suggest people give this serious consideration.

Crucifixion is not warranted...yet. ;)

You are defintely entitled to your opinions. However this forum is usually very relaxed, and l truly don't care to critique everyone's take, since we all come on different paths, and l personally enjoy reading other people's opinions. This is all conjecture and l treat it as such.
 

Judge

Well-Known Member
V.I.P Member
"Perpetrator" has a negative connotation and is undeserved atm because we don't know his motivation.

This sort of misrepresentation is common, but it doesn't make it right.

"Flirting" is not a crime (yet).
Many may find his actions unacceptable but are they being reasonable?
I don't believe so because we don't know his motivation.

Also, consider:
What some seem to be overlooking is the FACT that Primrose was originally amused by his innuendo.
She laughed.
He was given the "green light" to continue.
She even approached him, but he was not "interested" in taking it further.

This is not "victim shaming". It is simply stating a matter of fact.
Primrose did nothing wrong.
But it is in black type in this thread and can be readily referred to.

I suggest people give this serious consideration.

Crucifixion is not warranted...yet. ;)

There is no crucifixion. Only a wise decision for the OP to avoid this person based on what they initially said.

Socially speaking this isn't rocket science. Unacceptable is just that- UNACCEPTABLE.
 

Jonn

Well-Known Member
V.I.P Member
@Jonn , the OP stated that he was not interested in NORMAL conversation and went back to his innuendo. You misread and then weave together speculation about his innocence, as unfounded as what you accuse others of doing. I daresay you are quite naive. I bet you are the defense's favorite juror.
I beg to differ.

Primrose laughed at his joke.
She gave him a green light to continue.

Regarding my "misreading"(?):
I did no such thing.
Ironically, it is you who are misrepresenting me.
I never suggested he was innocent.
Please copy and paste where you think I did.
I was merely pointing out there are other possible reasons/motivations for his actions.

What I have said, and am maintaining to say, is that we don't know his motivation.
I have also pointed out numerous times that if he continues making innuendos against Primrose's wishes when he is aware that she doesn't want him to, it THEN has become HARASSMENT, and he HAS become a PERPETRATOR.

"Are we there yet?"
No.
Crucifixion can wait until it is determined the man is guilty. ;)
 

Jonn

Well-Known Member
V.I.P Member
There is no crucifixion. Only a wise decision for the OP to avoid this person based on what they initially said.

Socially speaking this isn't rocket science. Unacceptable is just that- UNACCEPTABLE.
Primrose didn't find his innuendo offensive originally.
What do you make of this?
 

Judge

Well-Known Member
V.I.P Member
I beg to differ.

Primrose laughed at his joke.
She gave him a green light to continue.

Regarding my "misreading"(?):
I did no such thing.
Ironically, it is you who are misrepresenting me.
I never suggested he was innocent.
Please copy and paste where you think I did.
I was merely pointing out there are other possible reasons/motivations for his actions.

What I have said, and am maintaining to say, is that we don't know his motivation.
I have also pointed out numerous times that if he continues making innuendos against Primrose's wishes when he is aware that she doesn't want him to, it THEN has become HARASSMENT, and he HAS become a PERPETRATOR.

"Are we there yet?"
No.
Crucifixion can wait until it is determined the man is guilty. ;)
Again, you seem to be missing the obvious. That the OP after the fact questioned what his intention was.

It's no secret that in real time many of us don't necessarily have the ability to instantly analyze social situations. Which may have amounted to little more than nervous laughter under the circumstances.

Simple point. Why did she create this thread? Duh. This is an autism community. Don't expect everyone to conform to NT standards of behavior over all kinds of social situations.

Clearly she had misgivings over what transpired in real time. Can't blame her at all.
 

Jonn

Well-Known Member
V.I.P Member
You are defintely entitled to your opinions. However this forum is usually very relaxed, and l truly don't care to critique everyone's take, since we all come on different paths, and l personally enjoy reading other people's opinions. This is all conjecture and l treat it as such.
I am an ultra-rational person.
Consider it my autistic "gift".

There are some logical errors in some arguments presented.
I am simply pointing them out.
I really can't see a problem with this.

Pax...
 

Judge

Well-Known Member
V.I.P Member
I really can't see a problem with this.
Being rational and logical comes at a disadvantage more often than not when the discussion involves human behavior. Logical reasoning is no guarantee of ethical behavior. And I see nothing rational or logical in approaching a complete stranger with sexual innuendo for any reason.

In essence your "gift" is flawed. We'll just have to agree to disagree. Vehemently.

 
Last edited:

Jonn

Well-Known Member
V.I.P Member
Again, you seem to be missing the obvious. That the OP after the fact questioned what his intention was.

It's no secret that in real time many of us don't necessarily have the ability to instantly analyze social situations. Which may have amounted to little more than nervous laughter under the circumstances.

Simple point. Why did she create this thread? Duh. This is an autism community. Don't expect everyone to conform to NT standards of behavior over all kinds of social situations.

Clearly she had misgivings over what transpired in real time. Can't blame her at all.
To me, the obvious is that flirting is not a crime (yet). ;)

Primrose felt uncomfortable after he showed no interest in communicating with her.
I would wonder about that also.
I would question what the motivation was.

Was the original innuendo an attempt to "break the ice"?
Questionable.
Was it simply a social gesture?
Perhaps.
Was there a desire to establish a deeper friendship?
No.
I would find that curious also.

The bottom line is, that if Primrose is uncomfortable with what he is doing, it needs to stop.
If Primrose conveys the message she wants it to stop, and he doesn't, then he may be banned from the establishment if he persists.
If he stops, then we have a storm in a "teacup".

BTW, I am not arguing.
I am simply pointing out alternative ways of interpreting the situation, as others have done.
I am interested in discussions, not debates.
 

Jonn

Well-Known Member
V.I.P Member
Being rational and logical comes at a disadvantage more often than not when the discussion involves human behavior. Logical reasoning is no guarantee of ethical behavior. And I see nothing rational or logical in approaching a complete stranger with sexual innuendo for any reason.

We'll just have to agree to disagree. Vehemently.
I agree.
Let us agree to disagree. ;)
 

Aspychata

Serenity waves, beachy vibes
V.I.P Member
To me, the obvious is that flirting is not a crime (yet). ;)

Primrose felt uncomfortable after he showed no interest in communicating with her.
I would wonder about that also.
I would question what the motivation was.

Was the original innuendo an attempt to "break the ice"?
Questionable.
Was it simply a social gesture?
Perhaps.
Was there a desire to establish a deeper friendship?
No.
I would find that curious also.

The bottom line is, that if Primrose is uncomfortable with what he is doing, it needs to stop.
If Primrose conveys the message she wants it to stop, and he doesn't, then he may be banned from the establishment if he persists.
If he stops, then we have a storm in a "teacup".

BTW, I am not arguing.
I am simply pointing out alternative ways of interpreting the situation, as others have done.
I am interested in discussions, not debates.

That's great to have discussions. Maybe now we can put this bad boy to bed.
 

Gerald Wilgus

Well-Known Member
V.I.P Member
"Perpetrator" has a negative connotation and is undeserved atm because we don't know his motivation.

This sort of misrepresentation is common, but it doesn't make it right.

"Flirting" is not a crime (yet).
Many may find his actions unacceptable but are they being reasonable?
I don't believe so because we don't know his motivation.

Also, consider:
What some seem to be overlooking is the FACT that Primrose was originally amused by his innuendo.
She laughed.
He was given the "green light" to continue.
She even approached him, but he was not "interested" in taking it further.

This is not "victim shaming". It is simply stating a matter of fact.
Primrose did nothing wrong.
But it is in black type in this thread and can be readily referred to.

I suggest people give this serious consideration.

Crucifixion is not warranted...yet. ;)
This is one continued bias towards innocence. I do not need to know his motivation to see continued objectionable behavior as a deliberate ploy.

What don't you get about the social communication that is meant by this?
I once tried to have a normal conversation but he seemed uninterested. Yet, he continues with his innuendos.
And you spouted this inanity that was never said.
Primrose felt uncomfortable after he showed no interest in communicating with her
You did not even come close to representing what was actually written. Not to see the intent of repetitive behavior when a more personable method of communication was offered, is definitely misreading the situation. Your presumption of innocence shows a naivety and inexperience with social situations in public venues. What he did is more suitable to the meat markets of pickup bars. Or, haven't you been exposed to that either?
Regarding my "misreading"(?) I did no such thing.
I'll believe that when pigs fly.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

New Threads

Top Bottom