Give examples of sh-tests you were put through

Post Reply New Topic

And to add to what hale-bopp said...

A lot of people, NT and otherwise, have trouble with dating because they place too much blame on the other person, or they chalked it up to themselves being inherently defective. They might say "what's wrong with me?" but they never learn how to constructively analyze themselves or the situation.

Try to consider alternatives to your initial conclusion to situations and run them through a logical flow chart to see if they make sense.

Make an attempt to understand the other person's point of view, and don't hold it against them.

Example: A lot of hot guys only like girls with perfect bodies. I don't have a perfect body. I can never have a perfect body. It's entirely beyond my reach. I could get upset with those men. I could declare all men to be shallow jerks. I could become a man hating femi-nazi....but I don't.

I reason with myself. Would I go for any guy who approached me? No. Do I have standards on how I want a man to look? Yes. Can I help that I'm physically attracted to some guys and not others? No. Should I expect men to have more power over who they are attracted to than me? No. That wouldn't be fair. That would be a double standard. Some men just aren't going to be attracted to me because they require a perfect body for that particular attraction circuitry in their head to be tripped and they can't help it. We have an inherent incompatibility.

They are not attracted to me because I have an imperfect body, and more importantly, I RESPECT THAT. I can't change it. I move on.

I DON'T hole myself up in my room and create enemies of them in my head.

I don't delude myself into thinking all men are like that. Statistically it's impossible.

If you have AS and you do never learn to stop, observe, analyze, reason, ask yourself questions..."I'm I interpreting this right?" "Are they trying to convey something else to me?" "Am I being socially appropriate?" "Am I being unreasonable?" "Are they being unreasonable?" etc etc and really make an effort to rise to a greater level of social awaremess, you will have a very difficult time not just with dating, but with other relationships as well.


And about that creepy piper having to be paid thing. I'll say the same thing I told Verizon when they tried to bill me for a service I didn't ask for and didn't want.."Uh...NO. Stop sending me a bill or I'll sue you."

Last edited by Chronos on 08 Sep 2010, 10:26 pm, edited 1 time in total.

what else were they sh!t-testing you for, if not a relationship? seriously? what else is there.... friendship, sex, what else? it wouldn't be a sh!t-test if you weren't hoping something would result from it... maybe if you xplained what she was testing you for by asking you to walk across town for ice cream? i read those links, and they didn't explain it at all. it seemed like the links were saying that guys should be jerks to girls in order to get laid.

but, sorry, no. i appreciate your nice words but you don't get to decide who comments on your thread. i won't leave unless this gets boring.

Your Original Post Primaloath:


Umm, actually, you did imply that you expected your cross-town walk to result in a relationship, as you gave that as an example of a sh*t test - the point of the sh*t test being to determine if a man is worthy of dating you. (You didn't define sh*t testing as having anything to do with your cardiovascular endurance, after all.)

If you don't want to hear from people who don't blindly support your perspective, I guess you could post that in your thread - that would save people the trouble of trying to enlighten you. Of course you'll forego the opportunity to grow and mature, but if that's your goal, I'm not gonna stop you.

I agree. You must expect something out of doing this stuff for women or you wouldn't be pissed off about it. The icecream is just an example. Why did you even go?

Right, that's what I was attempting to express. Personally I wouldn't want to be in a relationship with someone I was not compatible with so I too don't really see what the fuss is about....unless it was not just a simple innocent compatibility test and he was with a girl who honestly likes to play games and "push his buttons".

There are women/girls like that and those are the true b!tches.

But I don't think the original poster was being given any compatibility tests. I think he just completely misinterpreted the girls intentions because he was suspicious of them to begin with.

Actually prim if I were you I'd be greatful that some women even took the time to give you a woman's perspective on the matter, because it is woman you are dealing with, isn't it?

Complaining about the matter amongst men who have dating problems themselves won't help you solve anything.

Why don't you men listen to a woman's advice and insight instead of ignoring it and making the same mistakes over and over? I think that's actually part of the problem. An unwillingness to actually listen to women.

Another nugget - absolutely excellent advice, @Chronos.

"I'm tagging along doing your girlie things with you. You better repay with sex tonight."

Some of you will be single forever.

I'd understand if you didn't know you were autistic and had no support net. But you are here! You are reading these forums every day. And still you don't get it.

10% of people have personality disorder (according to a personality disorder text book) so you are likely to come across them regularly (10xmore common than aspergers). I think people with personality disorder are especially drawn to aspies for a variety of reasons (being alone, niave, vulnerable) so you would come across even more than NTs would. I would still say that behaviour was a sign that the person is to be avoided. There are plenty of nice women, hold out for one of them.

lotusblossom, I agree with you that these people manifested other forms of callousness that should have tipped me off at the time. Incidentally, most of the times I was asked to "fetch things", it was not by potential lovers. I did wisen up eventually.

However, the point of this thread was to give stories of sh**-tests. The reasons being that people with Asperger's might do well to recognize this form of real-life trolling, and that there might be sh**-tests specifically targeted at people who appear to have Asperger's, which would be interesting to read about. While some people who undoubtedly sh**-test in real life did take the opportunity to engage in online trolling here, it was not enlightening by any means.

oh, so you didn't expect to get anything romantic or sexual from those girls? so they were supposed to be friends? (i'm assuming they weren't acquaintances, because you likely wouldn't run errands for an acquaintance right?)

if am reading correctly, you wanted examples of people who were callous or troll-like? i don't think sh!t-test is a very good word for that because according to the links you provided sh!t-testing refers specifically to women who test men to see how they would rate as potential mates. so the word itself kind of doesn't apply. i think that's why we seem to be talking about different things.

Hyperlexian when I googled s**t tests, the examples just sounded like normal NT banter to me, I cant see the fuss.

thats why I dont like PUA, its just a break down of what happens normally betyween 2 people who do get on and like each other so someone can 'trick' someone who would not really like them into sleeping with them.

I would not want to pass any s**t test but would want someone who liked me as I am and who I liked. I would never date someone who liked banter it would not work out!

really? i guess it could be banter. i don't know - i don't work like that. i tried googling it, and it seems to be fairly universally related to the PUA mentality, which is why i don't understand using the word out of that context. it's about sex and love right?

I see. Then you get a lot of free favors from your friends (if you have any) without any kind of recompense, material or spiritual, in kind? You must be a very special, highly prized person.




Getting compensated for goods and services is my construct?! Amazing, I invented Capitalism! All bow down before my time-travelling abilities and economic genius.

Can you sense the sarcasm? It's totally unethical to propose someone do something for you without some kind of payment, whether that be currency, love, friendship, etc. And as I mentioned before, it is often implied because it is part of a social mechanism and is thus rude/bad form to state out loud what the terms are.

For instance, when you go on a date with someone (if you do, I'm not really clear on that), do you agree ahead of time explicitly the purpose of the date, what the desired end result will be, and what may or may not happen? E.g., "Hi handsome man, you and I are going on a date so that I can see if I want to eventually marry you, and if I like you enough this first date, we may have a second, and a third, and if any of those go well, I might sleep with you?" Is this "making things clear" like you say we should above? Does that not sound like maybe the rudest and socially most ridiculous and inappropriate thing you could say? So clearly no one is really going to make it evident on the front end, and that's why usually women who don't have intentions don't ask men they aren't related to (or work with) to do random things for them, unless they have an ulterior motive.




Please -- once again, women want to eat their cake and have it too. When these certain user women (and this is of course only a subset, not all women or all men) ask these men for these favors or errands, they are doing so under a social construct we all know well from cultural assimilation, media, and what our peers teach us -- that these kinds of "favors" ideally are done under a pretense that this person wants to get to know the guy better. These user women take advantage of the "unsaid" nature of these constructs by not holding up their end of the construct -- they hack it to their advantage, and are just as guilty as a man who uses women with promises of love and marriage, yet eventually doesn't follow through, cheats, and moves on to the next woman. Is it very hard to comprehend that users of different genders can have the same goal but gender-specific ways of manipulating people socially to achieve that goal?

For anyone that thinks this is creepy -- well gee, don't ask random guys or guys you barely know and have no interest in to do random s**t for you! Very simple and ethical.

Like I said earlier, I believe I am right and that life has proven me so -- once I came around to this viewpoint, the asymmetry in my relationships disappeared, user women faded into the distance, and I began having real,, meaningful relationships with people who were serious about knowing and being with me, instead of what utility they could get from me, and I've been in a happy marriage for 12 years. Can you say the same? Do you begrudge me for trying to help other men here also find that?

No one likes rejection, male or female, so yeah, when someone gives you a try and decides that it would be better not to proceed, yep, they are rejecting you, and yes, it stings, because you were soooo close in your mind to getting what you wanted, a relationship or X.

But done under those circumstances, it is at least following the social rules. It's ok to try to fail. It's not ok to make the other person think you are giving them a try-out, when really you have no intentions of ever following through, and have an ulterior motive that you exploit the social construct situation for your personal benefit. I think this is the real bone to pick from certain guys here with how they have been treated.

We all have choice, but we should make sure we are honest in our dealings. A woman who uses a guy for something, and who never really wanted anything personal with him, should really at least make an offer of material payment for services rendered. Sadly, way too many women exploit the chivalry construct to their advantage.

You can't have chivalry and feminism/equal rights in the same realm. It's one or the other, they are fundamentally opposing ideas.