Older man with Asperger

[Roman57]

They're probably assuming that older men are also insecure about their age when dealing with younger women. Fearing that their younger partner might go after a younger man so they manipulate their younger partner to prevent that from happening.

Then why don't they say that fat men would manipulate their partner to prevent them from going after skinny men? Now, it is true that there is prejudice both against dating fat men and dating older men. But its only the older men that goes with the notion of being manipulated.

Research is not really mainly programming. A research program can hire an IT specialist for that job. Much of the work is acquiring data and performing data and statistical analysis of the data.

Okay, so I was just saying I want to me mathematician/physicist rather than programmer.

Unfortunately, job application-related IQ tests are always timed and companies always give it themselves.

I didn't know jobs test IQ. Does it happen in US or only in Philipines?

I've actually won several amateur UAV design competitions because my design have considerably higher projected performance than everybody else although they only have knick knacks for prizes. Some of my designs have emerged in one of the largest aircraft companies a few years later.

If you won a competition it means it was publicized, how could they steal it then?

Appearance matters. Clothes, hair. You don't really need to be handsome or young to be approachable to women.

And thats what I don't understand. What is the logic behind it?

And thats what I don't understand. What is the logic behind it? I can think of two explanations and neither of them work:

1) Maybe women assume that appearance reflects genetics, and the same genes that cause bad appearance also cause bad personality. But, if appearance is a type of genetic test, wouldn't it be cheating to try to groom myself? And also, when women are themselves grooming themselves, aren't they cheating on their own test? Or does each of them assume that everyone else has appearance made all natural and they are the only ones in a room with "bad genes" where they are trying to hide it? Kind of like in a tale with naked emperor where each person thinks they are the only "bad" person in the room who can't see the clothes emperor is wearing, and are trying to hide it?

2) Maybe they know that its not genetics but a choice, and they are judging me by a choice. But in this case, the choice not to take care of the appearance does not imply being a bad person. It implies being a humble person. After all, a prideful person would want others to think they are great, so they would take care about their appearance to show off. But a humble person doesn't care what other people think of them so they don't take care of their appearance. Didn't Jesus criticize pharesees for showing off and preaching humility? Now I understand that in my case I am not humble (or else I won't write pages and pages complaining). But women don't know I wrote this post complaining. They just know I don't take care of my appearance. So, based on the information that I don't take care of my appearance, wouldn't it be more logical to conclude I am humble? And I understand that you might say that its one thing not to dress in expensive clothes (which might be humble) and its entirely different things to forget to tuck in the shirt and brush my hair. But, logically speaking, the latter seems like more extreme example of a former. People who don't buy expensive clothing but tuck in a shirt, they still care about their appearance "somewhat", enough to tuck in their shirt. So they are more humble than people with expansive clothing, but less humble than me, yet I am the most humble of all since I take less time with my appearance than all of them?

You only need to look harmless and neat to them.

And why do I look harmless if I care about my appearance? Is it because

1) Bad appearance ==> Bad genetics ==> Harmful behavior

or

2) Bad appearance ==> Humility ==> Harmful behavior

In any case, even if I do take care of my appearance and look harmless, they still won't be interested in dating me because I am old. So I threw away best years of my life because I was unaware that appearance matters, and now they won't give me a second chance because of my age. Thats why the combination of judging by age and judging by appearance puts me into such a frustrating position.

Reality doesn't really work that way and the world's view of sex and romance is over-inflated / over-hyped / overrated.

I wasn't talking about sex as a positive. I was talking about sex as a negative. If a woman doesn't love a man and is only with a man for other reasons, then her sex with that man would be damaging for her in the same way prostitution would be.

 

[timewerx]

Then why don't they say that fat men would manipulate their partner to prevent them from going after skinny men? Now, it is true that there is prejudice both against dating fat men and dating older men. But its only the older men that goes with the notion of being manipulated.

There are many women who like chubby men although "chubby" can mean "having fat in the right places". Like fat in the arms, shoulders, chest, lets, and butt but not so much in the belly

I didn't know jobs test IQ. Does it happen in US or only in Philipines?

I find it strange you're asking me about applicant screening process in US when I don't live in US but you do, so you probably know a lot more about the screening process in US.

All large / multi-national companies I've applied for in the Philippines have IQ tests including companies HQ'ed in US.

And thats what I don't understand. What is the logic behind it?

wouldn't it be cheating to try to groom myself? And also, when women are themselves grooming themselves, aren't they cheating on their own test?

There's a difference between cheating and just being considerate, respectful, and courteous to others.

Or does each of them assume that everyone else has appearance made all natural and they are the only ones in a room with "bad genes" where they are trying to hide it? Kind of like in a tale with naked emperor where each person thinks they are the only "bad" person in the room who can't see the clothes emperor is wearing, and are trying to hide it?

Didn't Jesus criticize pharesees for showing off and preaching humility?

The Pharisees displayed their acts of righteousness in front of everyone to be seen by everyone.

The Pharisees also loved money and that probably reflected in the expensive clothes they wear and only associating themselves with rich people. Jesus did not approve of those behaviors.

This gives us a clue that Jesus is a simple man and wore cheap clothes. Yet, Jesus did not repel women but rather women are drawn to Him. This would suggest that although Jesus wore cheap clothes, he wore them neatly with dignity and respect. Jesus was also particular with cleanliness and hygiene and this reflected in His passion to wash the feet of His own disciples.

but less humble than me, yet I am the most humble of all since I take less time with my appearance than all of them?

If you're entirely disregarding what is pleasing to others and only care about your convenience, won't that make you less humble because you're only paying attention to what you like not what others like. Considering self before others instead of others before self.

I don't mean you should wear expensive clothes. Only wear clothes you can easily afford. But wear them in a way that shows respect and consideration to others.

Most time I'm outside, I'm only wearing $3 running clothes and my rollerblades (skates) or running shoes. Although my running clothes are quite modern in style, always clean, and I'm athletic in physique makes up for it and I still get greeted by women even if I'm skating in upscale (rich) neighborhoods in the city. My hair is longer now but I tie them neatly.

And why do I look harmless if I care about my appearance? Is it because

Because it shows consideration to the other people.

Indifference to what other people feel is a sociopath behavior and can also be psychopath. Many serial killers are sociopaths or psychopaths. If you dress in a creepy manner, you will repel women. It's really that simple.

In any case, even if I do take care of my appearance and look harmless, they still won't be interested in dating me because I am old.

There are many ways to look young or look good to women without spending a dime. Taking good care of your health is fundamental. It's ironic coming from me because I'm technically undernourished and yet I'm in the appearance of excellent health.

It's not yet too late for you all I'm saying and you should probably listen to your mother.

I wasn't talking about sex as a positive. I was talking about sex as a negative. If a woman doesn't love a man and is only with a man for other reasons, then her sex with that man would be damaging for her in the same way prostitution would be.

It's not that simple and women may treat sex differently than men and may take pleasure from sex differently than men.

Don't even bother thinking about it because there's really nothing to think about and it's not even a problem, It's just different.

The problem you worry about don't exist. I know many Filipinas who married old American men. It may not be romantic love but they're actually genuinely happy. Believe me, it's probably far more traumatizing to have only little food to eat and worrying about having enough food to eat your whole life than to marry someone who can get you out of such situation even if you're not in love with them.

I'm not encouraging such marriage but such "marriage of necessity" did happen in the Bible like that of Queen Esther. There are situations God allows it or even provides for it.

 

[Roman57]

I find it strange you're asking me about applicant screening process in US when I don't live in US but you do,

Thats because I never applied for real job (except for the teaching job last year). I have always been going back and forth between graduate school and postdoc.

Yet, Jesus did not repel women but rather women are drawn to Him. This would suggest that although Jesus wore cheap clothes, he wore them neatly with dignity and respect.

Or maybe the women he interacted with didn't have those standards. Remember that woman that washed his feet with her hair? Most people today (men or women) would find it disgusting to do it. Mary Magdalene was so greatful he forgave her for her sins that she became the epitome of forgiveness and not judging others. In sharp contrast to women today that judge others by superficial criteria.

Jesus was also particular with cleanliness and hygiene and this reflected in His passion to wash the feet of His own disciples.

He wasn't doing it regularly though. In fact when he did it on last supper, Peter didn't know what it was about, which suggests it was the first time he did it.

If you're entirely disregarding what is pleasing to others and only care about your convenience, won't that make you less humble because you're only paying attention to what you like not what others like.

But ask yourself: WHY does bad appearance displeases others? Its because it portrays me as low status, and others don't want to be associated with people that are of low status. Now, what is worse: to BE a low status, or to be associated WITH someone of low status? I think to BE a low status is worse. Lets say I walk down the street and I pass by someone homeless. Yes, it is unpleasant, but this unpleasantness lasts for just few seconds, who cares. On the other hand, me myself being a low status is a lot worse because I am stuck with myself, I can't get away from it. So, by presenting myself a low status with my appearance, I hurt myself a lot more than I hurt others that interact with me. Thats why I say I am being humble.

Besides, if I follow your logic, then the most "considerate" thing to do would be to do what Pharesees were doing. After all, by presenting themselves as high status they supposedly made others feel good since it feels nice to interact with such a high status people. Yet Jesus rebuked them. On the flip side, Jesus and his disciples were "inconsiderate" when they were eating with their hands unwashed and picked grains on Sabbath, since they created an unpleasant experience to others watching them. Yet Jesus didn't rebuked his disciples: he rebuked Pharesees that judged them.

Indifference to what other people feel is a sociopath behavior and can also be psychopath.

Well, I am not indifferent to what other people feel, because here I am complaining about it. I do suspect that others "think" I am indifferent. Because a number of people assumed I am all logic and no emotion. But they never stopped themselves to ask: if I truly didn't have emotion, why would I spend so much time on "this" topic instead of saving my logic for math and physics?

But, back to what we were talking about. If indifference to what other people feel is a sign of sociopath, would it mean that pharesees are the opposite to sociopaths, since pharesees cared a whole lot to how others felt about them (remember Jesus said they liked greetings at market places and liked when others called them rabbi)?

It's not that simple and women may treat sex differently than men and may take pleasure from sex differently than men.

Different in what way?

Also I know that FEMALE prostitutes get mentally damaged by sex. But marrying a rich man without love and then having sex with that man, isn't it akin to prostitution?

 

[timewerx]

Or maybe the women he interacted with didn't have those standards. Remember that woman that washed his feet with her hair? Most people today (men or women) would find it disgusting to do it.

They're no longer strangers at that point and have already developed close relationship with one another.

He wasn't doing it regularly though. In fact when he did it on last supper, Peter didn't know what it was about, which suggests it was the first time he did it.

It demonstrated Christ's humble character but the practice is also done when stepping over to hallowed (consecrated) ground. Consecration is not different to literal cleansing or disinfection.

Besides, if I follow your logic, then the most "considerate" thing to do would be to do what Pharesees were doing. After all, by presenting themselves as high status they supposedly made others feel good since it feels nice to interact with such a high status people. Yet Jesus rebuked them. On the flip side, Jesus and his disciples were "inconsiderate" when they were eating with their hands unwashed and picked grains on Sabbath, since they created an unpleasant experience to others watching them. Yet Jesus didn't rebuked his disciples: he rebuked Pharesees that judged them.

Some of the Jews called Jesus "Rabbi" or "teacher" and at the time, Jews would either be Pharisees or Sadducees.

Clearly they don't regard Jesus of low status. I doubt that Jesus wore expensive clothes but the very least, he had an image that commanded dignity and respect.

It wasn't for looking poor that Jesus became hated by the Jews but purely the fact that most of the Jews hated the Gospel.

But, back to what we were talking about. If indifference to what other people feel is a sign of sociopath, would it mean that pharesees are the opposite to sociopaths, since pharesees cared a whole lot to how others felt about them (remember Jesus said they liked greetings at market places and liked when others called them rabbi)?

The Pharisees have different motives. They want to be praised too.

What I've been telling you so far is simply not appear offending. There's a difference between not appearing offensive and trying to appear in a way to get praised. The latter would likely require wearing expensive clothes and I never told you to wear anything expensive.

But marrying a rich man without love and then having sex with that man, isn't it akin to prostitution?

Would you refer to Queen Esther in the Bible as a prostitute for marrying an evil and very unlikeable person? I think you should talk to a Filipina who married an old American man and don't just talk to one but ask many from different backgrounds.

I don't think I'll be able to make you understand why it's not what it is. You don't even acknowledge Queen Esther in the Bible and you have no idea how women thinks or treat sex and you may have an unrealistic perception of sex or romance. You're looking at the subject from your own perspective without regarding the perspective of women as well.

 

[Roman57]

Some of the Jews called Jesus "Rabbi" or "teacher" and at the time, Jews would either be Pharisees or Sadducees.

Thats not true. There were multiple sects of Judaism. For example, there were Essenes, among others.

It wasn't for looking poor that Jesus became hated by the Jews but purely the fact that most of the Jews hated the Gospel.

Jesus couldn't have preached the Gospel in the current sense of the word because He hasn't died, burried or resurrected yet. Its true that He knew He was going to, but He wasn't telling it to others, because if He did, then they would be knowing that by crucifying Him they are giving Him what He wants, which would change the entire narrative. Its true though He might have said "something", because they had to put guards in place in order to make sure they won't steal His body. But I am not sure how much did He say.

They do have a verses in the Gospels the expression "preaching the gospel". I am wondering what it might mean. It might well mean something different from what it means today.

But anyway, back to your point. Since He wasn't preaching Gospel in today's sense, what Pharesees hated Him for was the other stuff. Namely,

a) Associating with sinners and tax collectors
b) Not following traditions of men (healing on sabbath, letting his disciples pick grains on Sabbath, eating with hands unwashed, etc)
c) Not brining the earthly kingdom that they were looking for. For example, after He fed them with bread, they actually tried to make Him their king by force, and he fleed
d) Claiming to be God while Jews don't view their Messiah to be God

As far as "d", I agree, its different from what I was talking about. But, as far as a, b and c, yes, they all can be seen as a combination of disregarding social norms (part b) and disregard of the material riches (parts a and c).

What I've been telling you so far is simply not appear offending. There's a difference between not appearing offensive and trying to appear in a way to get praised.

And why, exactly, am I offending? I mean, I know why SOME things are offending. Here are the examples of what I DO know:

a) It would offend a Jew to tell him you support Palestine
b) It would offend an Arab to tell him you support Israel
c) It would offend a Russian to tell him you support Ukraine
d) It would offend Ukrainian to tell him you support Russia
e) It would offend black American to tell him you oppose Affirmative Action
f) It would offend Republican American to tell him you support Affirmative Action

So I don't have to ask you why any of the above are offensive. I know why they are. But the question is: why would not dressing well be offensive? What group of people am I offending this way?

I think you should talk to a Filipina who married an old American man and don't just talk to one but ask many from different backgrounds.

I only talked to him once, in the church back in Albuquerque, and I left Albuquerque a year ago. So I don't know how to find him. I guess I can ask one of my friend to remind me of the name of the other person I talked to and then ask that other person to try to guess who that is. Thats possible. But I don't feel too comfortable doing that since I haven't spoken to them in few years.

You don't even acknowledge Queen Esther in the Bible

I never said I deny any part of the Bible. But, at the same time, I don't know how to really understand the parts that talk about sex. I mean there are parts that are a lot worse than that, such as forcing a woman to marry her rapist. It makes no sense, so I just skip over them.

You're looking at the subject from your own perspective without regarding the perspective of women as well.

I do want to understand woman's perspective. In fact, that is part of the intention of my making those posts: for someone to explain it to me. When I write, I am sharing my own perspective because that is what I have. But, in response to that, I would be glad if you share with me womans perspective (that you perhaps learned from some of your female friends).

 

[timewerx]

Thats not true. There were multiple sects of Judaism. For example, there were Essenes, among others.



Jesus couldn't have preached the Gospel in the current sense of the word because He hasn't died, burried or resurrected yet. Its true that He knew He was going to, but He wasn't telling it to others, because if He did, then they would be knowing that by crucifying Him they are giving Him what He wants, which would change the entire narrative. Its true though He might have said "something", because they had to put guards in place in order to make sure they won't steal His body. But I am not sure how much did He say.

They do have a verses in the Gospels the expression "preaching the gospel". I am wondering what it might mean. It might well mean something different from what it means today.

But anyway, back to your point. Since He wasn't preaching Gospel in today's sense, what Pharesees hated Him for was the other stuff. Namely,

a) Associating with sinners and tax collectors
b) Not following traditions of men (healing on sabbath, letting his disciples pick grains on Sabbath, eating with hands unwashed, etc)
c) Not brining the earthly kingdom that they were looking for. For example, after He fed them with bread, they actually tried to make Him their king by force, and he fleed
d) Claiming to be God while Jews don't view their Messiah to be God

As far as "d", I agree, its different from what I was talking about. But, as far as a, b and c, yes, they all can be seen as a combination of disregarding social norms (part b) and disregard of the material riches (parts a and c).



And why, exactly, am I offending? I mean, I know why SOME things are offending. Here are the examples of what I DO know:

a) It would offend a Jew to tell him you support Palestine
b) It would offend an Arab to tell him you support Israel
c) It would offend a Russian to tell him you support Ukraine
d) It would offend Ukrainian to tell him you support Russia
e) It would offend black American to tell him you oppose Affirmative Action
f) It would offend Republican American to tell him you support Affirmative Action

So I don't have to ask you why any of the above are offensive. I know why they are. But the question is: why would not dressing well be offensive? What group of people am I offending this way?



I only talked to him once, in the church back in Albuquerque, and I left Albuquerque a year ago. So I don't know how to find him. I guess I can ask one of my friend to remind me of the name of the other person I talked to and then ask that other person to try to guess who that is. Thats possible. But I don't feel too comfortable doing that since I haven't spoken to them in few years.



I never said I deny any part of the Bible. But, at the same time, I don't know how to really understand the parts that talk about sex. I mean there are parts that are a lot worse than that, such as forcing a woman to marry her rapist. It makes no sense, so I just skip over them.


I do want to understand woman's perspective. In fact, that is part of the intention of my making those posts: for someone to explain it to me. When I write, I am sharing my own perspective because that is what I have. But, in response to that, I would be glad if you share with me womans perspective (that you perhaps learned from some of your female friends).

It doesn't look like I can make you understand.

You probably need to talk to a Christian who is also either a psychologist or psychiatrist. You keep on wandering far from the essentials of our discussion, it's starting to waste my time. This is probably your Asperger and I'd be the least qualified to deal with it.

There's nothing wrong about wearing your clothes in such manner to cause the least amount of offense. If you think this is wrong, you're not understanding the Bible right. If you disagree, then I can't help you with your problems with women. Age is not the problem. I think you need to seek professional help.

 

[OldAbramBrown]

You need to prioritise your problems, and provisionally put more proportion of effort into solutions that at least partly worked. You don't reckon sufficiently with serendipity through which providence can happen. Your over reliance on the calvinist way of being Jewish reduced the information you would have about living. My God is additive not subtractive.

 

[OldAbramBrown]

You need to listen to more chamber and piano music especially Schumann, Brahms, Mendelssohn, Dittersdorf, Couperin, and to Haydn not Wagner. Try lots of Austin Blues which is subtle yet exuberant. You don't know what's a "great place" because you are going by publicity material which has no value as authority. You will hate being scammed by everybody, eventually. You are convinced that you have no power of intuiton, imagination or sound inference (once you rebel against that view you will find you start to develop these). The big picture is always to used by us as part of our guide but not to be made part of every cameo story we tell. Find out what allusion is, and use brief ones. I love calling myself Asperger and I make sure to put my own stamp on it because I think the neurotypical need to model being more "way out" too.

 

[OldAbramBrown]

Jesus couldn't have preached the Gospel in the current sense of the word because He hasn't died, burried or resurrected yet. Its true that He knew He was going to, but He wasn't telling it to others, because if He did, then they would be knowing that by crucifying Him they are giving Him what He wants, which would change the entire narrative ... But I am not sure how much did He say.

Please examine your "reasoning" by inferring. Never mind the official "current sense". He did preach the spiritual Gospel and always implied we'll be offered Holy Spirit help after His Ascension, as had been prophesied. I was told the whole Old Testament was Jewish and not just the legal rules (and I have some Jewish ancestry). Your denomination rations truth. Nobody genuine says they want to be crucified. You need to realise that as a single, reason is open to you. Men and women will find you a breath of fresh air once you abandon sophistry.

 

[Roman57]

@OldAbramBrown I think I was getting lost in your sophisticated language. Are those terms coming from some specific school of thought? What is its name?

One of the few words I didn't get lost is the word Calvinist. But what made you think I was one? In terms of my actual beliefs I don't believe in calvinism. But are you saying I make some assumptions without recognizing them? If so, can you point out where?

And you keep saying I am copying from others. Can you explain how? I thought my problem is that I am the only person that doesn't copy: everyone pays attention on dressing neatly and I don't, so I get ostracized. But you are saying I do copy, and copy too much. Can you point out where?

Dont get me wrong: you are probably onto something, its just hard to figure out what you are saying. Maybe if you provide concrete examples to all those vague ideas, it would help in figuring out what you are referring to.

 

[OldAbramBrown]

The idea of God being miserable and dooming us to a miserable life, and not attending to providence, is spreading into most varieties of christianity these days insofar as I can (approximately) observe. I was discussing "calvin" - "ism" with several people earlier and we settled on the phrases good cherry picking (good points some people claim to derive from him) and bad cherry picking (bad points others claim to derive from him). Then Calvin isn't in the Bible. Some old time religion may have part overlapped with his. My point really was to urge you to discern and critique the ensemble of religious views you are putting together - a thing I do for myself frequently - and consider adding to them; and am not attached to brand name labels that I may have used over-vaguely. People I met who don't believe in providence claimed to follow Calvin, so in my usage the name comes from them, and I thought the notion of providence you expressed was weak. Robert Letham has said all christians must be theologians in the sense of look into the basis of doctrines for ourselves. I think it would indirectly broaden your basis of ideas for provisionally coping with singleness in preparation for non-singleness. I'm better at presenting myself when I have more belief (as a quality toward the content of it), but this is just me.

 

[Roman57]

The idea of God being miserable and dooming us to a miserable life, and not attending to providence,

Again, can you be more specific? God is miserable in what sense? Clearly God isnt miserable now, but He was miserable on the cross. And He condemning us to miserable life in what sense? In a sense of not having sex before marriage (thats biblical) or in a sense of asthetism (a lot more controversial)?

And how does the current thread fits into all this if I wasn't even talking about religion in this particular thread?

Then Calvin isn't in the Bible.

Calvin isnt, but free will vs predestination controversy is.

My question is: what is the connection between predestination* and this thread? Maybe there is, so if you can clarify it, this would help.

*I just noticed spell checker put prostitution when I meant predestination. I just corrected it now.

 

[OldAbramBrown]

Because faith coming from belief in (real) Bible meanings illuminates life at whatever level we have the imagination to apply it: it creates food for discussion. In addition, abstract music (piano, chamber, R&B) relaxes the brain.

 

[Aaron112]

My salary was always low. As a grad student, it was around 1800/month.

For comparison, many in usa have salary or income of 900/month and consider it ideal.

 

[Roman57]

For comparison, many in usa have salary or income of 900/month and consider it ideal.

Actually, I used to think 1800/month is just fine. Its my mom's friend a year ago told me its low and that I should be making 2500/month at the least because its minimal pay and he said even that would be low and I should be making 4000/month.

Anyway, money is not my thing. My thing is career in theoretical physics. Thats why I don't want to get a job too far away from it, which is what caused my financial situation on the first place.

Now, the reason I mention money is because I was told others care about money even if I don't. In fact, some people told me that money might be the reason girls won't date me. Although I am skeptical: how would they know about my income without talking to me? Its not like they talked to me, I mentioned my income, they lost interest. Rather my problem is they don't approach me on the first place. Although perhaps they can deduce my income from clothes I wear (if I was a millionare, then I would just keep buying new fancy clothes each week and maybe some girls would like me).

Anyway, even THAT is not what I am talking about here. What I am talking about is age, not money. So women don't like me because I am old. Why don't they like old men? Because they manipulate them. Why are older men more likely to manipulate? Because they are financially better off. But wait a second: I am not financially better off. So why do I, as an old man, more effective at manipulation then? Thats the question I was trying to ask.

 

[Aaron112]

I think God has been and is continuing to protect you from women.

 

[Roman57]

I think God has been and is continuing to protect you from women.

But God said "its not good for man to be alone" and also "be fruitful and multiply". That, plus also in a bigger context its not just women. Other Christians my age are all married, so it doesn't make sense why I have to be a monk. I also don't have friends of either gender, people don't read my physics papers, etc. So its how I present myself.