Roman wrote:
smudge wrote:
I'll just say, the man I've wanted to be with the most, saw me as a friend first. This is exactly why I like him so much. This thing of either "all or nothing" is very unattractive, because it's asking for too much all at once. Women want a stable relationship - one that lasts, and one that takes time to build. In order to build strong foundations for a decent relationship, you need true friendship underlying it.
I don't want to go out with someone if I know as soon as we split up, then there would be no more communication. Say if I wanted children - it would put me off if I knew the guy I was in a relationship with, was just going to vanish because that was all he wanted to know me for.
If that was the case, this would actually make a lot more sense than the "system" that we are "ran by" today.
Unfortunately what you said above is not how most women operate. Most women believe they have to decide right on the first date whether the guy is a friend or a relationship material (after all we all know that if we don't do well on first date we don't get a second date). And this is part of what I find insulting -- how can they possibly make life long decision within just one day? Yet they do. So, as shallow as that game is, if they are to play that game, at least I don't want to always be on a "losing side" of that game. So if I keep facing "life long decisions" that I would "never" date them because I didn't hit it off on day 1, then I want to at least be on the opposite side and DO well on day 1 once in a while.
There is no system! There is no conspiracy, there is no borg. There's only individuals and you.
You say you're consistently rejected, you know what the only common factor in those instances is? You.
You don't know what "most women" do or think, you can only speak to your own experience unless you have citations.
Guess what? Everyone does have the right to decide who they will date and who they want to be friends with, however quickly they want to and based on whatever personal criteria is important to them. They can make their decisions however they want, no one is owed any set number of interactions to convince someone to be with them. You aren't entitled to a chance with anyone.
No one has to justify their dating choices, no woman has to have a good enough reason to reject you.
Having standards is not a game.
Why don't you focus less on blaming women for not bestowing status upon you with their affection and more time working on becoming someone people want to date.
If you aren't a good potential mate people aren't going to want relationships with you and that's not their fault.
KenM wrote:
Ancalagon wrote:
KenM wrote:
For me, the reason LJBF hurts is 95% of the time someone said that to me, they did not really mean it. They said it to let me down easy. This hurt me more because they were not honest.
LJBF is a canned phrase meaning "No thank you". It isn't meant literally any more than the answer to the question "What's up?" is "The sky".
Well forgive me if I think when someone tells me they want to be friends that they really mean it. I have AS so I can't read into what it really meant. If proper just said "not interested" it would be much easier. But people don't want to feel bad so they say LJBF.
Well now you've learned some new social vocabulary and you'll know what it means next time you hear it. The world isn't going to switch to strictly literal communication just because we're autistic people.
_________________
If your success is defined as being well adjusted to injustice and well adapted to indifference, then we don?t want successful leaders. We want great leaders- who are unbought, unbound, unafraid, and unintimidated to tell the truth.
Last edited by DogsWithoutHorses on 03 May 2012, 2:50 pm, edited 1 time in total.
03 May 2012, 7:35 am
