Got in Trouble 2 days ago at work (aspie conversing with a latino girl)

[Seshat]

Oh, I agree! It's definitely easier for everyone in the long run to do it that way. But the majority of teenage girls haven't learned that yet.

[wagegoth]

Really, we're all on a sliding scale. There's no hard, fast line between autism and neurotypicality. Asperger's ranges from the barely noticeable to the barely getting by. There are apparent physical differences in brain structure, but there is still variation.

Women's brains operate differently from men's. This gives women certain advantages and certain disadvantages. Women are socialized to emphasize feminine brain attributes, but this isn't the only reason they behave this way. Brain structure, hormones, and physical hardwiring all play parts in a person's behavior.

Because the cashier was a Latina, she might never learn to say, "No," in a plain, straightforward manner. That is socialization. I don't think we can put the whole onus of this situation on HHHZ. He does need to learn to back off, but I'm frankly sick of women who will not plainly say they're not interested. Boozy's father gave excellent advice, and I wish it was more common.

I'm also sick of men, who, even after you plainly say, "No, I'm not interested," do not leave you alone. My first husband, from an older generation, once asked me, when we were talking about a possible date rape scenario, "What about a woman who says, 'No,' but is actually playing hard to get?" I told him it was simple, take her at her word and walk away. After all, do you really want to get involved in any way with someone who thinks like that? You're in for a bunch of BS and misery if you do, and a rape charge if you're wrong.

HHHZ needs some help with his socialization, but I'm sure that if the girl had told him straight away that she was not interested he would never have bothered her again. That's a good thing about Aspies, if you tell them something like that, they accept and believe that it's what you want.

[TNT]

Really, we're all on a sliding scale. There's no hard, fast line between autism and neurotypicality. Asperger's ranges from the barely noticeable to the barely getting by. There are apparent physical differences in brain structure, but there is still variation.

I'll tread lightly, at least on this forum. I've found both through working in the mental health system and being a part of that system, is that true psychiatric disorders are seldom "barely noticeable."

I'm the poster boy for bipolar disorder... and I also tend to have a very wide emotional range and I'm often very moody. There's a difference.

During my endless hours of psychotherapy, one of the things my psychiatrist and I spent a lot of time on was the question, "Was it bipolar or was it just me being me?"

It was the fundamental question of the whole process. Sometimes it was simple... "Of course you're depressed... you just lost your job | lost your girlfriend | etc. You're supposed to be depressed. I'd worry about you if you weren't."

Sometimes it was more complex. Without going into details, I'd go in for the Monday Meeting and say, "This bipolar thing really caused an incident last week." And after we'd go over it, often the doctor would say, "I don't think it was bipolar. I think you just fucked up. We can work on that, but you can't blame it on being bipolar because the treatment is very different. I can treat the bipolar with meds... but I can't use them to treat the fact you can be a real ass sometimes."

And people wonder why I liked him as much as I did.

[JustADude]

"I can treat the bipolar with meds... but I can't use them to treat the fact you can be a real ass sometimes."

And people wonder why I liked him as much as I did.

Not I! That's a GOOD shrink right there.

Gotta love a guy that knows when to be comforting and when his patient needs a swift kick in the ass. Worked great for me a time or two when I was younger.

[wagegoth]

My psychiatrist just retired. He was very much like that. I really miss him.

[Seshat]

"I can treat the bipolar with meds... but I can't use them to treat the fact you can be a real ass sometimes."

And people wonder why I liked him as much as I did.

Sounds like a great psych.

[GingerBiscuit]

My therapist was like that. I was having CBT and it was a mix of 'well, it's ok to feel like that, you don't have to be a certain way all the time' and what I describe as the 'great big mental slap' of 'Now that is a massively unreasonable reaction to that situation? Why on earth would you assume that this one thing=this big bad thing?"

[TNT]

Sounds like a great psych.

He was. At one time, I had both a therapist for counseling and the psychiatrist for meds. Actually, I had a succession of therapists, all of whom were the warm, fuzzy types. The first one guaranteed me that I didn't have a problem that we couldn't solve in 6 visits. Another was the warmest, fuzziest person in history... I could have caused global thermonuclear war, and his take would have been, "the important lesson here is that you've learned you have more initiative and motivation than you think."

After a few years of this, the psychiatrist said, "I'm going to talk your insurance company into letting me also be your therapist." And he did. Those living in the US will understand why that's probably his greatest achievement.

[JustADude]

After a few years of this, the psychiatrist said, "I'm going to talk your insurance company into letting me also be your therapist." And he did. Those living in the US will understand why that's probably his greatest achievement.

Oooooooh yeah.... insurance companies =

[MoonChild2007]

I don't trust men in general. If a man asks me out and i say no, I am not interested. If they keep bothering me, that's when i get pissed off. Just like this one guy, I didn't trust him one bit and he kept conversing with me. One day, I just ignored him and I never saw him again. Frankly, I am glad. Men should learn that some women are not sex objects.

[Jester]

That description of aspergers' sounds a lot like me. I will talk and talk about a subject, and not realize if I am annoying or upsetting others..

It sounds a lot like me too. I will talk and talk, and often not notice that no one is iinterested in what I am saying.

But I don't have Asperger's. I am basically just an asshole that loves to talk!

I don't trust self-diagnosis. I pretty much self-diagnosed myself as lactose intolerant - along with a doctor who was suspicious it could have been that - a year or so back.

I self-diagnosed myself as being caffeine-intolerant 17 years ago. It was really simple, actually. I drank beverages with caffeine, I doubled over in pain as it ripped my stomach to shreds. I didn't drink caffeine, I felt fine.

Am I actually allergic to caffeine? Is this a condition? I don't know and I don't care. I eliminated caffeine from my diet and I feel much better. Easy fix. Doesn't matter if it's a condition.

That being said, this is a very simple self-diagnosis. When we are talking about mental, social, emotional, and psychological conditions, self-diagnosis is NOT the way to go. It's not as simplistic as "oh, if I stop ingesting this, I won't be in pain anymore."

They say that the lawyer who represents himself has a fool for a client. Well, I think that the "doctor" who diagnoses should be sued for malpractice by his patient!

Sure, in some cases it's impossible to get through life without some sort of assistance - a lower-limb paraplegic can't climb stairs, for instance - but where possible, the person with the diagnosis needs to try to work with what they've been given.

And I would disagree with that. Because sometimes, they can. A really determined paraplegic who doesn't let his condition stop him will quite often climb those stairs. Sure, he can't use his LEGS to do it, but that doesn't mean that he lets the stairs stop him.

The same idea applies to psychological conditions. If you are determined to overcome it, you probably will, even if you have to go about it in a way that is different from the standard method.

It's very difficult for me in general to read people and accept how they without verbal communication but I find it very challenging to communicate with girls. I find maybe if they wave at me, say hi or smile at me then it seems easier to approach them. I can't seem to ask girls out too well. especially when they don't know english too well but when you say "some other time" and they say "yes" they don't mean yes, and that's very frustrating why don't they say "no" altogether.

Time for a joke. Yes, a joke. Hey, I AM the Jester, after all!

A guy walking along finds a genie's lamp and rubs it. A genie comes out.

GENIE: "I am the genie of the lamp! I will grant you one wish!"
GUY: "Well, I'll be honest. I've always wanted to go to Hawaii, but I am terrified of flying and I get really sick on boats. I'd like for you to build a bridge from California to Hawaii so I could drive there."
GENIE: "Are you for real? Do you understand the engineering feats that such an endeavor would entail? Several hundred miles of bridge, across some of the deepest and most treacherous ocean in the world? You've got to be kidding me! Surely there is something else you could wish for!"
GUY: "Well, gee, I guess I've always wanted to understand what women are thinking."
GENIE: "Hmmm....so then... will that be two or four lanes?"

Point being is that no guy understands women. Any that say they do probably understand them less than most. Or think they understand them, but are woefully incorrect.

Amusingly, having a lot of female friends, I have found that women don't understand men any better, which being a man, I find funny, as I find men amazingly easy to understand. But then, being one of them, that makes sense.

You are no different than the rest of the male gender if you are not always knowing what women are saying to you, verbally or nonverbally. Join the club, my friend...none of us know!

[Broomjockey]

Frankly, I am glad. Men should learn that some women are not sex objects.

I take great exception to that remark. On two levels.

1. I, as a Man, already have learned that women are not sex objects. So have many other men out there. I've also been able to carry on friendships with women who I asked out on a date, without there being any awkwardness after they said no. Simply continuing to talk to someone after being rejected is a sign of only being attracted to someone for their looks (which isn't wrong mind you, just not what I go for personally). If the guy acts sleezy or keeps hitting on you after a no, then fine. But simple conversation? That's a bit much.

2. "Some women are not"? All women are not. Even women who place themselves in sexual situations, like posing for Playboy and such. A woman has value beyond her "naughty bits," even if she trades on them to make a living.

[kibbles]

ITA Broomjockey, since when is a simple conversation threatening? If they are getting intrusive (man or woman) then that's one thing, but there is nothing wrong with simply engaging a person in conversation.

[Seshat]

And I would disagree with that. Because sometimes, they can. A really determined paraplegic who doesn't let his condition stop him will quite often climb those stairs. Sure, he can't use his LEGS to do it, but that doesn't mean that he lets the stairs stop him.

The same idea applies to psychological conditions. If you are determined to overcome it, you probably will, even if you have to go about it in a way that is different from the standard method.

Accepted. And a blind person cannot see, no matter how hard they try. But they can continue to function, using other senses to compensate for the lack of vision.
Likewise, an OCD patient as severe as the TV character Monk (from the series of the same name) cannot stop being OCD. But can learn to function despite it.

since when is a simple conversation threatening? If they are getting intrusive (man or woman) then that's one thing, but there is nothing wrong with simply engaging a person in conversation.

A simple conversation is threatening when one party in the conversation refuses to accept the other party's cues to stop. This is especially so when the one who is trying to extricate themselves from the conversation has reason to feel uncomfortable or threatened, perhaps due to past history with the other person.

No person is required to accede to another's wishes, even in something as simple as holding a conversation.

[kibbles]

A simple conversation is threatening when one party in the conversation refuses to accept the other party's cues to stop. This is especially so when the one who is trying to extricate themselves from the conversation has reason to feel uncomfortable or threatened, perhaps due to past history with the other person.

No person is required to accede to another's wishes, even in something as simple as holding a conversation.

I wasn't talking about a situation in which a person has a history of being threatening or smarmy/sleazy. I was talking about Broomjockey's example that just because one person is not interested romantically in someone, it doesn't mean that they can't still be on friendly speaking terms.

If there is no history of sleaze or smarmy and the hitting on the person has stopped, to say that someone simply speaking to you at all is threatening doesn't make any sense IMO.