Re: Things I don't understand

October 1, 2002

Iris M. Gray dreamed lazily into the stars:

>However, she says

>that she can tell he likes her because he insults her and makes fun of

>her. I wouldn't like someone who insults or makes fun of me, but she seems

>to like it. Does anyone understand this?

Er...isn't that how seven-year-old NT boys show they like a girl?

I poke fun at my friends, but it's always at things I've made it clear in

the past that I admire/like about them -- I'll tease the NT for being an

overachiever, for example, as he knows perfectly well I respect that in

him. If a guy were to insult or make fun of me (aside from a gentle

friendly manner), it would instantly kill ANY chance of affection coming

from me.

mustang@... ~~ http://www.sonic.net/mustang/moggy

Sometimes it's better to light a flamethrower than curse the darkness.

-- Terry Pratchett: 'Men At Arms'

October 1, 2002

Iris,

It's understandable to me, because NT's have an innate ability to read a

person's tone of voice and tell whether a person is serious or not. She

probably knows the guy is just kidding (assuming, of course, that he

really is--even NT's can misread such things). It's something I've never

been good at myself, and would probably be just offended as you by a guy

who seemingly insults me.

Oh, and just so's ya know, I went back to my old Road Runner e-mail

address. I can now be reached at rnewstead@....

" Iris M. Gray " wrote:

> A presumably NT acquaintance of mine came over to visit tonight. She

> wanted to tell me all about this man she has a crush on. However, she

> says

> that she can tell he likes her because he insults her and makes fun of

>

> her. I wouldn't like someone who insults or makes fun of me, but she

> seems

> to like it. Does anyone understand this?

>

> Iris

>

> Iris Gray, Puff, Calli and Munchkin

> Cogito Eggo sum - I think, therefore I am a waffle.

> Personal website: http://victoria.tc.ca/~rainbow/

> Toastmasters website: http://victoria.tc.ca/Community/Bb/

>

October 2, 2002

I think that they pretend to be mean and rude to hide the fact that they

are attracted to the person until they are relatively sure that their

attraction is reciprocated, at which time both parties will stop being

mean and rude and have wild sex (using the testosterone for that instead

of aggression)... and yes there is an element of joking in this but the

principle is correct imho.

CZ

Newstead wrote:

> Iris,

>

> It's understandable to me, because NT's have an innate ability to read a

> person's tone of voice and tell whether a person is serious or not. She

> probably knows the guy is just kidding (assuming, of course, that he

> really is--even NT's can misread such things). It's something I've never

> been good at myself, and would probably be just offended as you by a guy

> who seemingly insults me.

>

> Oh, and just so's ya know, I went back to my old Road Runner e-mail

> address. I can now be reached at rnewstead@....

>

> " Iris M. Gray " wrote:

>

>> A presumably NT acquaintance of mine came over to visit tonight. She

>>wanted to tell me all about this man she has a crush on. However, she

>>says

>>that she can tell he likes her because he insults her and makes fun of

>>

>>her. I wouldn't like someone who insults or makes fun of me, but she

>>seems

>>to like it. Does anyone understand this?

>>

>>Iris

>>

>> Iris Gray, Puff, Calli and Munchkin

>>Cogito Eggo sum - I think, therefore I am a waffle.

>> Personal website: http://victoria.tc.ca/~rainbow/

>>Toastmasters website: http://victoria.tc.ca/Community/Bb/

>>

October 2, 2002

Antryg Windrose dreamed lazily into the stars:

>I think that they pretend to be mean and rude to hide the fact that they

>are attracted to the person until they are relatively sure that their

>attraction is reciprocated, at which time both parties will stop being

>mean and rude and have wild sex (using the testosterone for that instead

>of aggression)...

Yes, I agree completely -- and lazy me, I should have added that I

understood the principle behind the behavior, just not anyone

accepting/displaying it after maturity. Not that all of us mature...though

it certainly explains why the most annoying people on the planet have wild

sex lives while we're perseverating on things instead. (I think I know

which we prefer anyway...thus far, at least. ;^)

Regardless, I like autism-compatible courting methods better: they're

easier on the ego and typically don't involve creating new biological noise

machines as the primary goal. *grin*

mustang@... ~~ http://www.sonic.net/mustang/moggy

" I don't like human beings, what makes you think

I have any interest in creating one? "

October 2, 2002

DeGraf wrote:

> Antryg Windrose dreamed lazily into the stars:

>

>>I think that they pretend to be mean and rude to hide the fact that they

>>are attracted to the person until they are relatively sure that their

>>attraction is reciprocated, at which time both parties will stop being

>>mean and rude and have wild sex (using the testosterone for that instead

>>of aggression)...

>

> Yes, I agree completely -- and lazy me, I should have added that I

> understood the principle behind the behavior, just not anyone

> accepting/displaying it after maturity. Not that all of us mature...though

> it certainly explains why the most annoying people on the planet have wild

> sex lives while we're perseverating on things instead. (I think I know

> which we prefer anyway...thus far, at least. ;^)

>

> Regardless, I like autism-compatible courting methods better: they're

> easier on the ego and typically don't involve creating new biological noise

> machines as the primary goal. *grin*

I thought the biological noise machines were most often a side effect of

the wild sex life rather than the primary goal.

I hate children. Occasionally I see one in a shopping centre or on a

train (the only places where I go that children are to be found) and

even go so far as to think it is cute.. until it opens its mouth or

moves. To me they mean smell, slobber, noise and diseases, none of which

are things I desire to have around me.

CZ

October 2, 2002

> I thought the biological noise machines were most often a side

effect of

> the wild sex life rather than the primary goal.

Actually, as appalling and disgusting as it may sound, it appears

that creating those little snot/spit/shit machines is the primary

goal for many many people -- or, at the very least, a desirable side

effect of the enthusiastic shagging. Folks like you, me, and

are in the minority, although that minority has grown quite a bit

over the past 20 or 30 years... being CF in, say, the 1950s, was

absolutely unheard of.

Now that I think about it, I can see certain parallels between the

CF " movement " (for lack of a better term) of today and the civil

rights movement of the 1960s. Parents receive preferential treatment

in quite a few ways, and some states, such as Kalifornia, are passing

legislation to give them even more rights than those of us who are

CF. It really is quite obnoxious to, for example, force employers to

give paid leave for 8 weeks to an employee who has just squirted out

another sprog. If they get 8 weeks for *their* lifestyle choice

(which is all reproduction is, no matter what anyone says), why the

hell can't *I* get 8 weeks for something *I* want to do?

> I hate children. Occasionally I see one in a shopping centre or on

a

> train (the only places where I go that children are to be found)

and

> even go so far as to think it is cute.. until it opens its mouth or

> moves. To me they mean smell, slobber, noise and diseases, none of

which

> are things I desire to have around me.

My attitude toward them isn't *quite* that severe, but it's close.

My favorite comparison is to say that children are like Tabasco

sauce. I actually enjoy a little dash every now and then, but that's

not the same thing as drinking an entire bottle every day for twenty

years.

My friend , a divorcee, has hyperactive high-maintenance

identical twin seven year olds. Whenever I visit or we have dinner

or whatever, I always have fun with the boys for about ten, maybe

twenty minutes, then my attention starts to wander. With children

that are more mild mannered, I enjoy playing with them longer,

perhaps even as much as a couple of hours or so... but in the end,

it's always, " OK, I'm done with you now -- let's go find your

mother. " (I don't actually *say* that, of course -- that would hurt

the child's feelings. But it *is* how I feel.)

October 2, 2002

Parrish wrote:

>

>>I thought the biological noise machines were most often a side

>

> effect of

>

>>the wild sex life rather than the primary goal.

>

> Actually, as appalling and disgusting as it may sound, it appears

> that creating those little snot/spit/shit machines is the primary

> goal for many many people -- or, at the very least, a desirable side

> effect of the enthusiastic shagging. Folks like you, me, and

> are in the minority, although that minority has grown quite a bit

> over the past 20 or 30 years... being CF in, say, the 1950s, was

> absolutely unheard of.

CF to me means cystic fibrosis.. I never saw it used to mean child-free

before. I would have hated to live in the 50s. I am very much not the

housewifey sort and not interested in breeding or looking after a man. I

remember in early secondary school (still on homeschool living with my

Dad) I had to draw a plan for my dream house. I cannot remember which

subject or why but I can remember how the plan was set out. I had four

" wings " and a central area with a mosaic floor and a fountain. The four

wings were one for me, one for the husband, one for each of the two

children (back then I believed that everybody grew up to be a nuclear

family). Speaking of nuclear families, the term used to make me laugh

because mine really was in the sense of warfare.

> Now that I think about it, I can see certain parallels between the

> CF " movement " (for lack of a better term) of today and the civil

> rights movement of the 1960s. Parents receive preferential treatment

> in quite a few ways, and some states, such as Kalifornia, are passing

> legislation to give them even more rights than those of us who are

> CF. It really is quite obnoxious to, for example, force employers to

> give paid leave for 8 weeks to an employee who has just squirted out

> another sprog. If they get 8 weeks for *their* lifestyle choice

> (which is all reproduction is, no matter what anyone says), why the

> hell can't *I* get 8 weeks for something *I* want to do?

Because if you were a newborn baby you would need somebody to look after

you and if both your parents were working full time then who would?

There would be even more screwed up children in the world if mothers did

not get maternity leave. I think it is more for the sake of the child

than a holiday for the mother.

>>I hate children. Occasionally I see one in a shopping centre or on

>

> a

>

>>train (the only places where I go that children are to be found)

>

> and

>

>>even go so far as to think it is cute.. until it opens its mouth or

>>moves. To me they mean smell, slobber, noise and diseases, none of

>

> which

>

>>are things I desire to have around me.

>

> My attitude toward them isn't *quite* that severe, but it's close.

> My favorite comparison is to say that children are like Tabasco

> sauce. I actually enjoy a little dash every now and then, but that's

> not the same thing as drinking an entire bottle every day for twenty

> years.

I must add that I suffer from quite severe OCD and that includes

contamination fears. That most likely is a major contributor to my

aversion to children. They do carry a lot of bugs (and head lice seem to

be something almost every child or a friend of theirs will get at some

stage) and being near a child that sniffs or coughs or picks its nose

(which they all do at some stage) is enough to cause me to have a panic

attack if I am unable to avoid being there. For this reason, I wait

outside the surgery when I have a doctors appointment and if I have to

be inside (like if it is too hot or rainy outside) I take a valium when

I get there so I will be able to talk coherently in the appointment.

> My friend , a divorcee, has hyperactive high-maintenance

> identical twin seven year olds. Whenever I visit or we have dinner

> or whatever, I always have fun with the boys for about ten, maybe

> twenty minutes, then my attention starts to wander. With children

> that are more mild mannered, I enjoy playing with them longer,

> perhaps even as much as a couple of hours or so... but in the end,

> it's always, " OK, I'm done with you now -- let's go find your

> mother. " (I don't actually *say* that, of course -- that would hurt

> the child's feelings. But it *is* how I feel.)

I do not get to have close contact with children by way of playing with

them so I have no idea how I would react in that situation. I did teach

piano to young children for a while when I was fifteen and some of them

I liked to teach. Most I hated to teach because they wanted to be there

about as much as I did and I copped the blame from parents for their

children's disobedience and unwillingness to practise. With those

children I wished that their mothers would not sit across the room

watching so that the kids could at least have some fun.

And for anybody who has children on this list such as Nanne... no

offense to your children or yourselves for having them. Each to their

own. I have five birds to crap on me and otherwise control my life and

my house

CZ

October 2, 2002

> Because if you were a newborn baby you would need somebody to look

after

> you and if both your parents were working full time then who would?

I've got an even better idea: how about if both the mother and the

father are working, they both acknowledge that means there isn't room

for a child in their lives, and they wait and work toward the point

where they *are* able to fit a child into their lives on their *own*,

without insisting that somebody *else* has to help them.

There are many, many reasons that I am CF. One of those many reasons

is that I am not willing to bear the financial burden. And if I'm

not willing to spend money even to raise my *own* children, what

possible reason could I have for wanting to spend money to raise

anyone *else's*?

If I want to buy a house or a car or a boat or whatever, it's up to

*me* to invest the time, effort, and money to bring that into my

life. Insisting that the government subsidize me (with taxpayers'

money), or insisting that my employer subsidize me (by imposing a

burden on my coworkers) would be a ludicrous outrage -- if I were to

make such a claim, anyone would insist, rightly and reasonably, that

if I can't afford a car, I'm just going to have to go without until I

*can* afford one. It's no different with parenthood. If you can't

afford kids, don't have them, and *definitely* don't insist that *I*

have to help you pay for them if you can't afford them yourself.

Parenthood is not a right -- or if it is, then it certainly is not a

right that requires any sacrifice from anyone else.

As for those who insist on breeding whilst knowing full well that

they can't afford children -- well, they are simply being

irresponsible. I agree that this is very sad plight for the

children. I also agree that it's a very thorny problem, one for

which I cannot propose a solution off the top of my head. All I know

is, whatever the solution is, it does *not* have anything to do with

*my* wallet.

October 2, 2002

I have long privately felt that the world is greatly overpopulated. I think

only NT logic can concinvingly factor out population from economic and

environmental forecasts. One could say demographics is one of my special

interests. However, we should really consider a complex total consumption /

efficiency equation, in which human population is just one factor

determining the overall impact humanity has on mother earth. The problem is

I find myself at odds with earlier political convictions (workers of the

world unite! etc.) and with my personal behaviour. We have two kids and they

are very much part of my life. FYI the birth rate is actually higher in the

US (2.2 kids per woman) than most of Western Europe and the countries with

the lowest birth rates are Italy, Spain and Greece (between 1.1 and 1.3 kids

per woman). Basically everyone should respect your wish to stay CF leaving

more room for the millions of spoilt little brats (though in many countries

they are not so spoilt) to play.

Neil

Re: Things I don't understand

>

> > I thought the biological noise machines were most often a side

> effect of

> > the wild sex life rather than the primary goal.