Maybe I should go ahead and date non-whites

Post Reply New Topic

OP, it seems like you are fundamentally missing the point of what dating is all about.

Dating isn't about having a rigid list of criteria, and only settling when you can’t find someone who meets that criteria. Dating isn't just about passing on your genes and getting validation from another person. Dating isn’t about setting for someone you don't want to be with when you can’t attract anyone you do want to be with.

Dating is about developing a strong connection with another person whom you feel drawn towards because you enjoy spending time with them. Dating is about finding someone with compatible goals and values to venture through life together with.

I'd suggest scrapping all your criteria that doesn't pertain to your religion and keeping an open mind. Your primary focus should be whether you feel a connection with someone and enjoy being around them. If you enjoy being around someone and find them at least somewhat attractive physically, that's really all you need to start exploring if there might be something more there. By needlessly creating these superfluous rules, you're only making it harder for yourself.

So.... You fail again and again with women. By your own admission, you don't acknowledge what they say, you admit you don't want people to know you're together, you expect love and social skills training in exchange for not much, you say you wouldn't want to be seen in public with certain women but would settle for them, you seem to think that unintentional abuse isn't actually abuse, you repeatedly exhibit casual racism...and when criticized for these things, you try to justify yourself in endlessly tedious detail. Given all this, it's not surprising that no one wants be be with you. I doubt that I'd be able to stand 5 minutes of a face-to-face conversation with you.

Last edited by Benjamin the Donkey on 06 Oct 2022, 6:22 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Idk I'd find it pretty hurtful if my boyfriend was uncomfortable being seen with me in public. So yeah, if that is how you'd be than no, don't date a non-white person it would not be fair to them. People generally want to feel like they have their partners support/or their partner has their back in public.

Also, as a white person I would not want to be in a relationship with someone who is against interracial relationships. Even, if we are the same race so it wouldn't directly affect me I'd still be disgusted they feel that way about it.

What is in your head isn't a fact its an opinion. A fact is when it can be supported by evidence. An opinion is when its based on thoughts and feelings. Your facts are based on opinions which can be altered depending on how someone accesses the situation.

I don't get why you were enraged by Hannah as she did nothing wrong. It was a fact that you were enraged at Hannah and Dana, but the reason why was your opinion. Also did Dana tell you she thought you were obessing over her? Did you ask Hannah if she was upset with you as you supposedly called her the N word? No, that was just your opinion and Dana's on the situation as Dana isn't Hannah so doesn't know Hannah's facts. I agree with the therapist on that it is likely that Dana and Hannah were upset that you used the N-word and decided you are a racist and no longer want to have as much contact with you. Hannah looking around the room and looking scared isn't a fact its your interpretation of the situation. Unless you asked Hannah about why she was looking like that? If you kept trying to talk to Hannah and were likely being in places where she was going to be then its her opinion that you were stalking her and she had every right to complain as no one should feel uncomfortable. She probably wasn't making it up, but her 'facts' were pointing to her believing you were stalking her.

As others have said on the Chinese girl, her patience had run out. You were taking advantage of her and she wanted an escape. Plus you more or less insulted her so she probably had to go out and cry about it. She might have been having a bad day and you made it 100 times worse or something. Espically as she had to put up with you for so long.

So you talk about sex with random strangers and mainly homosexuality? Only orthodox Jews to my knowledge still believe in homosexuality, others have welcomed it and allow same sex marriages. They probably thought you were a homophobic person and again didn't want to associate with you, and its fine they had that opinion.

There is a time and a place for certain things and you really need to learn them. Blame it on having Asperger's/Autism makes the rest of us look bad. You really don't seem to learn from your mistakes and making the same ones over and over again.

Okay, lets give another example. Suppose I am getting out of the house to go to university, but somebody thinks I go to grocery store. Are we disagreeing about facts or do we have a different opinions? From my perspective, its a fact from a get-go. But from what you are saying, its an opinion until my trip is actually completted.

So what if my trip is stopped by a thunderstorm. So will my intention prior to thunderstorm remain an opinion, even though I know for a fact where I "would have" went?

Or what if there is no thunderstorm. Will it be just a difference in opinion until the time I reach my destination?

Or what if I, in fact, do reach my destination. But there were no street cameras to record it. Will it be just an opinion since it wasn't recorded on cameras so can't be proven?

And by the way, in case of Dana, the exact person I was enraged at WAS recorded: all she had to do was to pull out the chatlog. I didn't think of an idea "please pull out the chat log" because I can't think on the spot. So it became an opinion simply because it didn't occur to me to ask her to pull out a chatlog. Even though it could have been a fact if I did?



What I was enraged about was that

a) Hannah looking around the room, yet telling me its okay. So that implied she thought I was too stupid to realize that she was looking around the room.

b) Hannah telling me that if I ever want a company, I should ask her for a coffee. Yet she didn't give me contact information. So this made me think that she didn't want me to ask her for a coffee, and only suggested it to be polite. But then the question is: how stupid would I have to be in order not to see this? Because its a simple logic that if she is not giving me a phone number, I can't possibly ask her for a coffee. If she tries to be polite, it means she is hoping I won't see this simple logic. Which means she thinks I am stupid.

Now, looking back at this, I realize that there were simply too many unknowns to know whether or not Hannah was being negative towards me. The people that *were* negative, clearly so, were Jonathan and Dana. But as far as Hannah is concerned, I simply don't know since I don't remember any interaction with her except for the one in the caffeteria. If I go with (i) and (ii) below, then she wasn't negative; or if I go with (iii) below, then she was.

So the "theory" in which she wasn't negative is this:

(i) There were two separate things going on. One was that I told her how I used N-word. The other one is that the conversation took place in the middle of crowded caffeteria. So maybe her saying it is okay was referring to the first one, while her looking around the room was referring to the second one. So there was no contradiction. She could have meant "don't worry about what you did, but crowded caffeteria is not the place to talk about it".

(ii) I don't remember names and faces. When she approached me in caffeteria, she re-introduced herself as someone going to Baptist Student Union, which I went to regularly. But I had no idea about it: on my end of a line, it was the one and only time I ever talked to her. This being the case, it is possible she already gave me her number but I didn't know it was her, or that we ran into each other in person every day but I didn't know that we did, or even that we had mutual friends (whom I didn't remember/recognize either) and/or her being so familiar with me that she assumed I could always ask for number if I didn't have it, etc. But since I didn't recognize her, none of the above crossed my mind until several years later. So, instead, I assumed that "she knows perfectly well that there is no way for me to invite her, but she thinks I am too stupid to see it, so she gives me a fake offer and assumes I would be too stupid to see that its fake" (hence my anger at her). But in actuality it might have been something as simple as my not remembering people around me.

While the theory in which she "was" negative is this:

(iii) Even though N-word was not directed at her, I still made her feel unsafe. For example, when I go down the street and see a man yelling things into the air (which happens often where I currently live) I feel unsafe. I know they are not directed at me. But since that man acts inadequate, I can't predict what next he will do. So maybe in her case it was the same thing. She knew I wasn't directing anything towards her "as of yet", but she couldn't predict what I would do next. What would I do if I feel unsafe? Exactly what she did. On the one hand, I would pretend to be nice to an unsafe person so that they don't do any harm to me until I make a safe escape. But my non-verbal behavior would contradict that because I would be scared and won't be able to help it. And yes I would make promises I won't intend to keep, just so that I can escape the situation.

But, again, I don't actually know it was (iii). It could have been (i) and (ii). There is just no way to tell.

So the summary of situation with Hannah could be something like this:

--- She might and might not have been negative towards me: If what happened was (iii), then she was; if what happened was (i) and (ii), then there wasn't. Back then, I assumed it was (iii), as I haven't thought of (i) and (ii) until several years later. Whether my assumption was right or not, there is just no way to know.

--- Even if I go with (iii), it was selfish of me to be angry at her instead of being sorry for acting in a way that made her feel uncomfortable (particularly since I would have been uncomfortable myself if I was in her shoes). The reason I was angry at her anyway, is that I have a perception that I am a little kid, everyone around me are adults, and those adults mistreat the little kid (due to Asperger I am much younger than my age). So that might be an area where other people's perception doesn't match mine. If I see myself as a 5 year old while others see me as a grown man, then that would explain why I knowingly act in selfish ways without realizing the impact it has on others.

But, despite everything I just said, my claim about DANA misrepresenting FACTS is still correct

The fact of a matter is that I was enraged at Hannah. Whether I should have been or not, is a different question. But the fact is that I was.

Also my own admission that the situation with Hannah wasn't so clear is irrelevant too. The reason its irrelevant is that this is something I am realizing now, in 2022. But I am not talking about 2022. I am talking about 2015. Back in 2015, I didn't realize the things I wrote now. So, back in 2015, I was enraged at Hannah. Thats a fact.

The other fact is that Dana told me I was enraged at Dana. Yet I wasn't. I was enraged at Hannah. So Dana accused me of something that was factually not true.

And even by your definition of fact vs opinion, it was a verifiable fact for the following reason. Dana took the word "enraged" out of facebook chatlog (otherwise neither of us use that word in other situations; I used it that one time on a facebook, and Dana repeated it after me, but took it out of context). Now, if she were to go to that chat log, then I said exactly whom I was enraged at. So if I say "that particular paragraph on a facebook states I was enraged at Hannah and not Dana", would you agree thats a fact? Well, I guess not now since I no longer have access to that facebook. But it was back then.



But the other fact is the timeline: exactly when was I enraged at whom. So, at the time when I wrote the word "enraged", the only one I was enraged at was Hannah. I only "became" enraged in Dana few days later, when she described the way she reacted to that word at the therapy session.

So this clearly means that my word "enraged" that I used in a facebook chatlog was referring to Hannah. Yet Dana assumed it was referring to Dana. Hence the miscommunication.

Also, in facebook chatlog, I stated exactly what I was enraged about: namely, I talked about Hannah looking around the room, etc. Yet Dana assumed I was enraged at the fact that Dana didn't talk to me at the library and didn't respond to my facebook messages in a timely manner. But thats not what I said in the chatlog, is it.



Don't you see its a bit odd to say "the reason why I did certain things is my opinion"?

When both of us are talking about why those other people did what they did, then yes it is opinion: we haven't been to their heads so we don't know. But if I say why I did what I did -- or you say why you did what you did -- then both of it are facts. Since I know for a fact whats in my head and you know for a fact whats in your head.

When you say that "its my opinion why I did what I did" or "its your opinion why you did what you did", it comes across as if both of us aren't in touch with ourselves.



She didn't use the word "obsessing" (at least not that I remember), but she DID say the following things:

--- That I told her (that is, Dana), in facebook, that I was enraged that she (that is, Dana) didn't responded to me on time (Again, the actual chatlog contradicts this since I only used the word enraged once, and I was referring to Hannah when I did; when I used that word, I was speaking TO Dana, but I was speaking ABOUT Hannah)

--- She said that she was going to enter the library, but when she saw me entering, she decided not to, because she was worried that I would stop her at the library and ask her why she didn't respond to my facebook messages (I know for a fact I wasn't going to do it, cause she wasn't one of the people I was obsessing about).



Hannah never said I called her the N-word. The only thing Hannah did was looked around the room. But Dana -- later -- told me that I called Hannah the N-word. And Dana doesn't know Hannah. Dana decided that I called Hannah the N-word based on my description of the situation. But, from my point of view, when I was describing it I made it clear that I said N-word to Jonathan and was telling "about" it to Hannah. So I don't see why Dana didn't get it.



That I agree with. But Dana seemed extremely illogical to form that opinion. If I told Dana how I told Hannah how I called Jonathan N-word, why did Dana re-interpret it as my calling Hannah N-word?

Now, the reason it is important is that the way Dana twisted facts about Hannah is similar to how Dana also twisted facts about herself. And when Dana twisted facts about herself, she ended up accusing me of stalking her (that is, Dana), when I wasn't.



Not having as much contact with me, is one thing. Blatantly accusing me of stalking, is a totally different thing altogether. Dana had every right not to have contact with me. But she didn't have a right to go to police station and tell them I stalked her when I haven't.



I see it now (see my elaboration of it above). But I didn't see it back then.

So my current understanding of situation is that

--- What Hannah did wasn't a fact, it was my interpretation

However

--- The fact that I was enraged at Hannah is a fact

--- The fact that, in a facebook chatlog, I was referring to Hannah when I used the word "enraged" is also a fact

--- Yet Dana decided I was referring to herself, Dana, when I was using that word. So she twisted facts.



It was Dana who decided I was stalking her, not Hannah. Please re-read the description of the incident.

As far as "being in places that *Dana* have been", that is partly true. I remember, some time *before* that incident, I was at the library, and Dana approached me and apologized for some other time when she didn't talk to me. I didn't even remember that other time since I can't tell Dana apart from other women her age. And, besides, I didn't really care, since she wasn't the person I was obsessing about. As a matter of fact, I was about to make a phone call to some woman on a dating site, so it was a little bit of an inconvenience that Dana stopped me to talk. But I was like "alright, since she wants to talk, why not".

But then, after that other incident of her saying how she was afraid to walk into the library, I realized that the above interaction was far more important than I thought it was. The reason she approached me is that she was afraid that I would confront her that she didn't. I clearly wasn't going to, since I didn't care about my interaction with her altogether (until she started to accuse me of stuff). So I should have corrected her "oh no, you don't have to apologize". But I didn't correct her, because I didn't know what was running into her mind. I was like "okay its a bit strange for her to apologize, but who cares". But, yes, I should have cared, she just didn't communicate it to me.

By the way, it just occurred to me that Dana incident and Ginger incident are similar. I thought "it is strange for Dana to apologize" but then, later, I learned "Dana apologized because she thought I was going to confront her". Likewise, I thought "it is strange of Ginger to make leisurly remark about the other skype account". But then, later, I learned that Ginger made that leisurly remark because she thought I was cheating on her. In neither of those cases it ever occurred to me that I was accused of any of it. In case of Dana I was thinking "It is a bit inconvenint she talks to me, when I need to make a phone call to that girl on a dating site". In case of Ginger, I thought "it is a bit inconveinent she makes that remark about skype when I am in the middle of my monologue about creation/evolution". But then in both of those cases, those "inconvenient interruptions" were actually about false accusations: Dana was thinking I was about to confront her when I wasn't, Ginger was thinking I was cheating on her when I wasn't. And so learning how perceived "small inconvenience" is, instead, a "false accusation", is what makes me feel tricked, and, therefore, angry.

The other place where I was running into Dana without realizing it was IHOP. What I know is that

--- At the counseling session (long before our falling out) Dana mentioned seeing me at the IHOP, and I was confused as to when

--- At the IHOP I was often seeing a woman that looked very similar to Dana. Was it Dana or not? I don't know for sure

--- That woman at IHOP, who looks similar to Dana, introduced herself as Tayna. Thats what made me think she was a different person

--- When I talked to the counselor about Dana after our falling out, he was repeatedly correcting my pronounciation of the name: he was telling me to pronounce the second letter as two sounds "ay" rather than one sound "a". Thats what makes me suspect that "Tayna" at IHOP and "Dana" at the counseling might have been the same person, after all.

In any case, there was one time when I got mad at someone else and yelled profanity at that lady at the IHOP (no, that other person wasn't related to her, I just didn't have that other person in front of me so I decided to yell at stranger). Then the next day, that IHOP lady said "you know you made me mad yesterday" I asked when, and she said when I cussed at her. That is when she said her name was "Tayna" (which I interpretted as different from Dana, but might have been wrong). Then this "Dana" incident at the counseling happened few days later. So, if it was in fact the same person, that might have been part of the reason why she acted at the counseling the way she did. But, again, I don't actually know it was the same person. I would give it 75% chance that it was.

I guess, if it was her, then the other theory is this. In my mind, I yelled at a random stranger, since I didn't know who she was. In her mind, I yelled specifically at her, since she assumed I knew who she was. So she decided I yelled at her "because she didn't approach me in the library and/or respond to my facebook". But on my end it was not the case at all: I thought she was just a stranger.

But, again, I don't know if thats what happened, its a theory. I do know that I cussed at a woman at an IHOP who called herself "Tayna". But whether or not it was the same woman as Dana at the counseling, I am not too sure.

But even if it was her. At IHOP I used F-word, not N-word. So I never called Dana with N-word. I only called Jonathan that way.

The counselor says that my quoting that word while describing the situation can amount to calling the person with that word: in fact in the subsequent one on one session he said "and now you are using that word towards me" (but I wasn't directing that word to him either, I was just quoting to him what I said; plus the counselor was white -- just like Dana and Hannah were). So, from his interpretation, people just don't like if I quote it, no matter in what context. But that didn't seem like what Dana said. Dana acted as if I actually directed that word to both her and Hannah.

Speaking of not recognizing Dana, could it be that our stories diverge as to how many times we ran into each other in the library? From my perspective, it was twice: the first time when she apologized, and the second time when she didn't enter the library so that I don't confront her (and I wouldn't have known about the second time if she didn't mention it in the counseling). But maybe from her perspective I run into her daily. Because I do use library several times a day: I go there to check the internet. So if she uses the library similarly often, then we would be constantly running into each other and I wouldn't be recognizing her.

Still, though, she can't say its stalking because going to the library to use the internet has been my habbit that lasted many years BEFORE I ever met Dana. Are you saying she might have thought I pretend to use the internet in order to stalk her? If so, that was a complete miscommunication.

But she never mentioned either the internet or the frequency I go there. She only mentioned that one time she decided not to go there so that I wont confront her with that question. Thats why I am puzzled why she thought that.

Here is something else that occurred to me just now. If I did, in fact, run into her all the time -- yet never acknowledged her presence since I didn't know it was her -- could it be that she thought I did it on purpose? As in, I was following her quietly waiting for an opportune moment to do whatever deed I was waiting to do?

Again, thats not what she said: she never mention that I don't say hello to her and/or following her quietly. I am just trying to theorize. So fact remains that I am greatly puzzled as to what happened and don't have actual answers besides my own theorizing.



Well, I wasn't dating her or anything. Nor were I asking her for money either. I was simply asking her a million questions as to why others said or did what they did. Yes, I know people can get tired of this. But that is not exactly "taking advantage".

Also, even though I know that people "normally" get tired of it, I didn't know that she would, since she came across as a really patient person. It all started with her approaching me in a hallway and asking me how things are going. She started out by offering a lot of advice of her own -- academic advice, that is. And the conversation was really long even though I wasn't the one keeping her. So that is what made me decide that she is patient and, therefore, I subsequently were asking her questions later on.

But basically the point is that, after that interaction, we interacted many times and often. So I didn't expect that she would lose her patience in such a sudden manner if she was so patient up until then, without any signs of losing it.



So are you saying when she said about bathroom, she knew she was lying? But, in her mind, lyng is okay if it is the means of an escape?

Or are you saying she didn't know she was lying and actually thought I was guilty of it? If so, how exactly does it work? Is it that if her subconsciousness wants an escape then the subconsciousness would lie to her consciousness and make her counsciounsness think I am guilty of something I am not?



Yeah, but none of it has anything to do with imposing into her private life (bathroom). Yet she made it sound like thats what I did.



I don't know how it is in England, but in America homosexuality is a political topic. Thats why I don't view "talking about homosexuality" as "talking about sex". Yet she did.



I know this. As a matter of fact, that was precisely the reason I brought up the topic. I find it strange that most Jews welcome homosexuality despite the fact that they say they believe in the Old Testament, and Old Testament forbids it. Hence, I was trying to ask how they justify it.



Well, I realize that my opinions can come across that way. That won't be surprising. But the surprising part is that they accused me of "talking about sex", which I wasn't. You can't accuse me of A when I am guilty of B. Yet thats what happens.

By the way, I can see a far clearer way I annoyed them, other than homophobia. What happened was that I kept going on and on about the subject, even though they were tired of it. So, first, I dominated the conversation, despite the fact that other people were around and wanted to talk about other things. Secondly, after people left, I stayed around for another half an hour to finish that conversation, when I was the only one interested in the subject. They were also giving non-verbal signs that they were tired, such as sighs, and so forth. I easily read those signs, but I knowingly ignored them and pushed forward.

I realize all of this is inappropriate. But, again, you can't accuse me of A when I am guilty of B. Fact remains that I weren't talking about sex. I was only talking about politics/religion -- not sex.

If both the Chinese girl and people at the Jewish club were to stop talking to me because I keep pushing the same topic when everyone else is tired, then I would agree with this. Thats exactly what I did. But thats not what they accused me of, is it? Instead of accusing me of being pushy, they accused me of sexual things: intruding in bathroom privacy (Chinese girl) and talking about sex (Jewish club). So that is what I disagree with: to be accused of one thing when I am guilty of something else.

And with Dana its the same concept. Just the fact that I use N-word doesn't mean I am guilty of stalking. Yet the counselor told me that N-word was the reason Dana did what she did.

Last edited by QFT on 07 Oct 2022, 11:58 am, edited 10 times in total.

I know what you mean. Finding a woman who's into me is hard. Getting a woman to remain into me is even harder.

On an episode of Two and a Half Men, Walden asked Alan "What do you do to scare the ladies away?"

Alan replied "If I knew, don't you think I'd stop?"

I can relate to Alan.

If you don't want to be seen with someone, put a bag over your head in public.
People will see your beautiful partner, and not even know you're there.
Problem fixed.

Otherwise, spare this woman the agony and grow up.

I'm sorry but I just had to say it.
This is beyond ridiculous.

Did the guy you punched out in bible study "do" something to you?

You guys.

All you had to do was not call a black person the N-word.

Maybe that's the lesson you should take from that.

Instead of being enraged with Hannah, get engaged to Hannah.

Re: Race requirement.. have one, don't have one, explore options if they intrigue you and you're attracted to someone. People have different criteria for who they're attracted to and would date. They might include age, gender, hair colour, height, religions etc and maybe race. Some people have almost no limiting criteria at all - and that's okay - but it doesn't make it wrong, IMO, for someone to have a 'type.' If the type of person you're attracted to/might date is broadening, then sure, perhaps be open to different people and see what happens. If it's extremely narrowly defined - and you're okay with that because those are the Only people you're attracted to, whether by nature or nurture doesn't even matter, then stick to who you're attracted to at the exclusion of others even if it means remaining single -> because that's a choice, too. To date Only who you're into, or no one at all. Just have to fully accept the constraints and limitations you impose upon yourself and be Okay with remaining single vs. dating someone a bit different than you're typically attracted to. Obvi these are personal choices for You to make. I will say, though, if you think you Might be into someone different than your typical, and you have great difficulty dating at all, it would improve your probability of having a date if you broadened your type range - that's basic math. Then you may discover you're more attracted to them than you first thought, or not at all and decide you'll narrow your range and be Okay with that and all it brings.

I didn't read every post in this thread, read the first page and started skimming.. got to this and felt compelled to reply.

This is not some strange paradox to solve. People who are happy with themselves, love themselves, are content solo etc are infinitely more attractive than people who are unhappy. It is what it is. It's simply a universal constant. If someone believes they cannot be happy without some other person 'completing,' them as their partner, that's a sure sign of some very unhealthy codependency issues.

Think about it, if you see some woman who is clearly miserable is your reaction 'Oh yeah, defs the kinda girl I wanna date.. she hates life, work, people, herself.. that's totally attractive and I can't wait to spend time with her because I want to put MASSIVE amounts of energy into making her happy!! !'

No. Typically that'd be a massive red flag run-for-the-hills sorta sign for anyone. But if you saw a very content even tempered woman who smiled and laughed and seemed to enjoy herself, her life, her work, her peers etc.. chances are you'd find her attractive and might desire to spend time with her to share in her good vibe.

Same goes for women towards men. No sane woman is seeking out a hella depressed man who dislikes everything about life and themselves just waiting to be the woman that he tries to derive his sense of happiness & well being from.. wtf? Why would a woman seek out some sort of emotional vampire of a man?

Rather, it's WAY BETTER when two people are individually and independently happy with themselves and their lives and so on, and then when they pair up, they can both add to each other's happiness vs. be draining on the other person. That's why the age old saying is that in order to be loved you first have to be able to love yourself. It's really very basic foundational stuff when it comes to romantic relationships, attraction, and avoiding toxic people and relationships for all parties involved.

^ Yes, the OP should stick with his preferences and spare the women of colour.

Um, wut?

When do you live ??

It's 2022 here. There are people of all races, religions, ethnicities, nationalities, religions etc all living in the same cities & neighbourhoods together just fine. Sure, there are still some people who'd prefer their kids date and marry people like them, but those barriers are falling fast and hard as people do whatever their hearts desire.

When and where do you live where it's uncomfortable, as a white man, to be seen with a non-white partner ? ..wtf.

Goldfish21, the OP has been edited because of racism in his post.

He sees non white women as inferior. Because he cannot attract white women, he is contemplating dating a non white woman.....and feels embarrassed to be seen with a woman of colour.

Apparently, it is where the OP lives.