Eyes

Post Reply New Topic

so he was thinking "BIG FLYING RAT AHOY"

Personally, I don't have to look into somebody's eyes to know what they're really like. I can just listen to what they say and how they say it, and notice the things they do and how and why they do them. I really don't know why adults find it necessary to maintain eye contact during conversation. It really isn't necessary. Blind people are able to converse with others perfectly well, and we are all perfectly able to talk to one another on the phone, so why the big issue with gazing into one another's eyes?

The reason I equate looking into the eyes of all and sundry with promiscuity is because, for me, sustained eye contact is a very intimate experience, on the same level as kissing. As such, it is only something I would wish to practice with my significant other. I don't feel the need or desire to kiss strangers to get my point across, and nor do I feel the need or inclination to look into their eyes.

It's not that I'm frightened of eye contact with strangers. It's just that I don't want to engage in it. I can do it if required. For example, if I'm in a situation where somebody is smoothly trying to take the p**s and they are looking at me, I will steadily return their gaze and stare coldly into their eyes for a minute to see if they back down and start to blush. (For example, I might do this with people who are lying to me, and I know full well they're lying, and they know it, too). But nowadays I am rather weary of the world, and don't tend to bother lifting up my eyes to look at anybody much at all.

That sounds tough, Molly. People might start making erroneous assumptions about you if you refuse to make any eye contact at all. I know how you feel though, it's just all so exhausting!

Last edited by wozeree on 10 Nov 2013, 5:38 pm, edited 1 time in total.

FFS Molly stop contradicting yourself.

Eyes do TOO sparkle and flash if the light reflects off them, like a lake sparkles under sunshine. The reason actors eyes are always sparkling in movies is because there is a little sparkle light attached to the camera. The moviemakers do this because "sparkling" eyes are more attractive to moviegoers.
There are expression charts somewhere.
And yes, the emotions are conveyed by minute muscles around the eyes and the position of the pupils rather than by the eyeball itself.
But a lot of us can't read eyes very well. We didn't get practice as children because for us eye gaze stimulates the amygdala in the brain rather than the limbic system. So what gives pleasure to most people gives us almost unbearable anxiety. It took me decades to desensitize myself so I can now look into people's eyes without crippling anxiety, but I still don't get the warm fuzzies NT get. And I still can't read subtle expressions.

They already make zillions of nasty assumptions about me already, so I figure, what does it matter if they make one more?

I am not alone on this issue. In the autistic community, eye contact is a major deal.

But, getting back on topic:

In terms of the potential readers of your book, I don't suppose they would share my puzzled views on "sparkling eyes" and so on. Maybe you should just use all those clichés (even if you don't understand them yourself) just to make the book sound like it's "supposed" to sound.

I am not contradicting myself. Please do not use abbreviations of curse words to direct at me. It's not very nice.

First I said I felt no need or desire to look into the eyes of a stranger...then I said I can do so if required. Those are two different things.

If I am engaging in normal everyday conversation, there is no need for intimacy or conversation, so I will abstain from prolonged eye contact. But if somebody has lied to me and they are denying it and I want to try and shame them into confessing their lie, that's when I will look into their soul.

I do not enjoy staring into the nasty depths of the eyes of a liar, and seeing him/her shamelessly looking back at me from their nasty harsh soul. Do I desire to do it? No. Is it a nice experience? No. But I can do it when it's a case of a situation that's reached the point of a confrontation.

I do not like confrontations, and have no desire to have them, but sometimes they happen. When they do, I will stand up for myself, and point out their nasty lies by looking into their eyes to say: "look. My eyes are honest. You can see the honesty in my eyes, can't you? I know you can. Well, I am now looking into your nasty eyes, to let you know that I can see the dishonesty in yours."

If you do not understand what I am saying or you think there is a contradiction somewhere, please forgive me. You clearly don't see eye contact the way I do, and my words come out jumbled sometimes, and I don't always manage to express just what I mean.

I was trying to figure what that meant - that was harsh.
Also, I understood Molly to be saying what she just reiterated - that she doesn't like to but she will when necessary. Not a contradiction.
I'm sorry things got so stressed out, I was enjoying our conversation (got nothing else done today though).

my apolgies, of course I shouldn't use abbreviated cuss words, I was frustrated and didn't control myself. Sorry!

I think I understand what you are saying but I don't think you understand what I am saying at all and I've sort of run out of ways I know how to explain what I am thinking.

One final attempt but, honestly, I'm sort of past caring now (in a non nasty way - I'm just tired)
To me, it makes no sense that you are saying in one paragraph (or a post) that there is only ONE person you would ever be willing to make eye contact with, and that's someone you wish to be intimate with, and then in the next paragraph you cite examples of when you have engaged in the eye contact with people you did not wish to be intimate with - i.e. to determine whether someone is lying. I can understand that you would prefer not to have eye contact because it is uncomfortable, but you keep making it sound as if the stuff that you later claim you experience -doesn't happen - when clearly it does.

Anyway, this is all very jumbled up and I am sorry for any misunderstandings and for being rude

It's OK, thank you for apologising. I am having a meltdown today so I'm feeling very woeful and touchy and we are both tired now, too!

Let me put it like this:

It is perfectly possible to shake hands with somebody, or stroke their shoulder soothingly to show sympathy if they're feeling upset, or have some other form of physical contact with them that isn't charged with romantic intentions at all. During that action, you have skin-to-skin contact, and said skin-to-skin contact is not happening in a sexual way. It's just platonic, so it can't really be compared to the wandering hands of a tender lover moving over your skin.

In the same way, other people seem to be able to look into people's eyes in two different ways: either platonically, (simply to provide a focal point during conversation), or romantically (charged with sexual intent). I can do this (look platonically into somebody's eyes) if I am required to, but it just feels odd and awkward from my point of view. That particular area (the eyes) is somewhere that I feel is supposed to be a place where people only look when they have romantic intentions. However, because I am aware that other people do it, and it's a way that they communicate platonically, I copy them. Simple as that.

I just noticed this other misunderstanding. Oh dear! No, I didn't mean that I would look into somebody's eyes to "find out" if they were lying. Rather, I meant that if I already know that they are lying, due to circumstantial evidence, I will confront them with said evidence and if they have the barefacedness to lie even when they've been busted, I will then look into their eyes steadily and sadly with disdain, to see if they are capable of looking back and carrying on with their lie or not.

It's easy to lie with your voice, but lying with your eyes is not so easy. Some liars look sheepish when they're caught out, and will hold their hands up and admit it when you catch them out. Others actually want to believe their own lies. When you confront them with evidence and look into their eyes, all you see is rage and anger. There is no embarrassment or shame in them at being caught out, because they've persuaded themselves that their version of events is actually the truth. So it's really not always true that you can "see a lie" in somebody's eyes. You will only see the lie there if the person in question believes that they are telling a lie.

Edit: OK I deleted a few paragraphs of rambling irrelevant stuff. Sorry.

In summary. I've had quite a lot of experience with the two different sorts of liars: those who have the grace to blush, and those who prefer to believe their own lies. The latter sort of person will not reveal lies in their eyes, because in their twisted mind, you are the liar, not them. Also I dare say they are so far gone in their web of lies that they would even pass a lie detector test.