Relationships

never had a relationship, dont know how to make any... do you buy girlfriends at tesco? if not then i dunno how to get one... ill try looking on amazon or something i guess

[removed by moderator]   (Sorry, couldn't resist...)

Reminder of Rule 7:

This is a hate-free zone for autistic people, their families and friends, and professionals working in the field. We do not permit sexism, homophobia, racism, anti-Semitism, religious intolerance, transphobia, disability hate speech, hate speech, obscenities or pornography to be posted or linked to here.

Reminder of Rule 7:

This is a hate-free zone for autistic people, their families and friends, and professionals working in the field. We do not permit sexism, homophobia, racism, anti-Semitism, religious intolerance, transphobia, disability hate speech, hate speech, obscenities or pornography to be posted or linked to here.

That might have been through in the Victorian era but it hasn’t been true for most of the 20th century. For most of the 20th century the child was a defacto property of the wife and she could deprive her husband of them with a divorce. 
this has only recently changed with the growing popularity of joint custody arrangements. in practice valves arrangements create considerable difficulty for the courts. when one parent wants to move out of the area and take the children with them there is usually a massive court battle over whether that should be allowed or not and there usually isn’t an obvious answer.

The only exception would be if you have older children, teenagers, Who have strong views about which parent they would prefer to live with if it becomes a choice between them. But this of course creates its own unfortunate circumstance where the children are effectively forced to choose between parents.

even when you consider that because of biological necessity the man is more likely to have a stable career than the woman, because they don’t need to take career breaks for pregnancy and childbirth. this may seem like an advantage but in a divorce proceeding The court may be inclined toward custody to the party that doesn’t have a full-time job. What so-called male ‘advantage’ give us with one hand it takes with the other.

for many men who work full time and have X wives Who dont, who have possibly remarried, The child is still likely to be treated as the de facto property of the woman.

it still is like that in every non western country. thats just the old fuedal system where the man is the dynasty head and he married his daughters off for alliances or merging of other families to strengthen and create a strong family dynasty and ensure his line and his people dont become extinct.

we got rid of that in the west, thats why the west is facing a fertility crisis and europeans will become extinct in the future..... the other non western countries still do this which is why they breed fast and spread. they are coming here and breeding here while we dont, so we will go extinct, they will take this country... and bam, when they have the country its the same system that you speak of again lol so we will have it here again and that issue is the fact without that your people dont breed and they go extinct and other people that have this system breed alot and take over and become the new majority rulers and it becomes their system.

values are bred, and the people with good values simply wont and dont want to breed.

There are things other than illegal physical compulsion or threats that can be applied to people. Powerful forces, including family expectations, financial pressure, the effect of societal norms can all come into play to ensure that people, overwhelmingly women, marry against their wishes. Even now in church weddings the bride is 'given away' by her father or other male relative to her husband. This is now 'play acting', but not all that long ago this was a reality and a daughter becoming a wife was legally exchanging one 'legal owner' for another. Unless there were a prior legal dispensation in place, the husband had unfettered access to all of his wife's property and all children of the marriage came under his sole legal control.

You have to go a long way back in the uk to find a time when forced marrage was legal. Pre christian times in fact. It was one of the first things the church and newly christian kings banned. Why do you think the church doors allways have to be left open at church weddings? To stop forced marrages that were banned under church law.

I really do not appreciate you being abusive in that manner Debbie.   You owe sperg an apology.  He EXPLICITLY said "50 years", you even included that in your quote.

Was it within the past 50 years ... what you are talking about?  No.  So you started out with a deliberately misrepresentation of what he said in order to be abusive and falsely claim he was joking about horrible stuff.

You should show the grace he previously did and apologise and express never to do it again.

Sadly, she is not.

Biology inflicts basic rules on organisms. I've been hearing some lurid stories of animals behaving badly second hand from my mates daughter this week who is doing a PHD...

Like it or not, society is rejectig basic biology and sexual mores, in favour of a newer, more egalitarian approach where what were once basic sex defined roles are now considered "fungible". 

It is my understanding that the sort of patriarchal male oppression depicted was less prevalent than Debbie thinks. 

BUT there is a "war against children" documentary that can be sought out and watched to get a wider angle picture of what is going on here in the west...

c'mon. you have got to be kidding?!

I Sperg said:

OTOH, I do know a really bad one word joke that has been played on many women now for at least 50 years...

Feminism

I wish I could transport you back to a time where you are female and owned by your husband, unable to own property, vote or work, educated or have any rights at all.

Oh, and raped every night by a man you didn't want to marry and forced to have children you don't want.

Or perhaps we could go back just 50 years as that's the time span you mentioned when at last women have access to contraception, but are still being treated as objects, owned by their husbands, regularly raped and beaten in their own home, denied the ability to do well in a career, asked if they intend to have a family when interviewed and then rejected when they say yes, institutionalised for having children out of wedlock, patronised, typecast and constrained.

And that's just the start of it.

No, but it does let out a constant high-pitched screech.

It's not really much of a bomb if it's only offended one person...

Does the F-Bomb have the time delay fuse in the back?

Sperg, I am deeply offended you would drop the f-bomb like that!  :-)

One of those few times when Although broadly speaking I agree with you Peter in most things, in practice I've found that for some people, some things are desperately unhumourous. 

I've been asked to make a reasonable adjustment to my behaviour and the reason explained to me and I find I want to make that adjustment.

OTOH, I do know a really bad one word joke that has been played on many women now for at least 50 years...

Feminism.

You see I have always taken the veiw that in the right context with a well crafted and told joke any topic can be funny.

Rape, murder, holocosts. anything. For example mel brooks (a jewish comedian) made a hilarious sketch about the spanish insquisition in which many many jews were killed.

PS why does the mainstream media suddenly find it more acceptable to make these sorts of jokes when it’s for a man who is the victim https://youtu.be/7UIIiYunMQk there’s something of a double standard there.

In truth Peter,much as I am normally seen as a "champion of the far right amnd all that is bad" by some misguded fools, the lady makes a point. 

I spent a LOT of time in my younger life as a confidant to women,, being "compliented on my listening skills", and whilsty developing a firm cynicism about much that is spouted today, and all things feminist in particular, they do have one or two valid points to make.

One of which, is that in a civilised society "rape" is never funny.

Even a paid up and qualified misogyinst (at least for humourous effect) like me can get that. I did need it explained to me though, because I really didn't see the joke as about rape but others oviously did. 

I think it's much harder for a man to link the word "relationship" with the word "rape" (except perhaps some men can in a financial context) and so now understand why that conflcit arose. 

ah but we don't have a bad taste rule. We have an obsenity rule. But no bad taste, offencive, or 'triggering' rule. The problem with a lot of these content regulation rules is their interpritation is supper subjective. pick 2 people at random and they can have wildly difrent ideas about what is and isnt obsean.

I Sperg said:

Now that you have taken me to the point of understanding why what seemed to be a simple joke along the lines of "the only way i am likely to get a woman is to kidnap one" could be actually seen as hurtful or triggering to a subset of people that I know to be unacceptably high, rape victims (of either sex TBF). I won't be making that humour again.   

Thank you for such a gracious reply.

I read your words with regard to your own relationship 'quest' and they resonated - not just with my life (in different ways) but my autistic friend's.

We have to learn along the way as those things that come naturally to allistic people simply don't to us.

We on this forum have relationships too with one another and so we must, and do, learn to see each other's points of view, even if we don't share them, and thereby learn to get along.

I wish you all the best in life.

Thank you for that "heads up" Debbie.

I have given this a fair few hours to percolate, and I'm trying to square away a huge cognitive dissonance as a result.

I Simply did not see this as an attempt to make a joke about rape, in fact until you mentioned it, at no point did the concept of rape enter my head.

For the avoidance of doubt, the cartoonish image that sprung into my head was a mix of a caveman carrying off his woman (in a bag for some reason) mixed with the video off youtube of the "bloodhound gang bad touch" video.

The humour I found to be not the act itself, but in teh tongue in cheek acknowedgement of the sometimes ridiculous level of difficulty Sperg males encounter when they go a'courting.

In reality, anyoen wil tell you if you ask, the way to lose "Incel status" is to "make yourself more attractive, and get "out there".

For me it was not quite so easy, I had no idea what to do when I got "out there" or any idea what made a man attractive to a woman. 

HAVING no idea that I wuz Autistic and having completed some years in the army, I felt that I SHOULD BE the equal of pretty much any other man, (army training does kinda plant some odd ideas into ones head!) So why was there no girl for me? It was all pretty unfair, and the women who did seem to befriend me, never seemed to get past the "friendzone". Worse, some seemed to take shameless advantage if I became attracted (or worse infatuated) with them. I speedily learned that the more I fancied a woman, A weird inverse square law kicked in that seemed to make me less attarctive...

I noticed that all my more sucessfull male friends seemed to play weird games with females which I could not quite grasp, or see the significance of. Worse, I did not want to start a relationship based on a load of what seemed to be "bullshine"...  

Frankly I was getting nowhere, surrounded by false friends and acquaintances who I was attracting by means of running a lot of "partying" and "open house" events, running between "crush and crash" as far as any females were concerned and generally acting like a fool.

THEN I READ "GAMES PEOPLE PLAY" by a guy by the name of Eric Berne and the scales fell from my eyes. Here was a wrkshop manual of human relationships broken down into their basics and explained (if one had the patience to read) very well indeed.

More importantly, it gave me a real choice in how I could choose to interact with people. The games I choose to play. I could see the games I was playing to prevent myself from experiencing intimate human contact, and I learned several new games that clearly I could incorporate into my "mask". Most imporatly, I learned when it is the time to stop "playing games" and be my authentic self.

Why this seemed to make me more attractive to women I cannot quite fathom, but there was a very noticeable change in my whole life trajectory that started immediately after reading that particular book.

I was reading it not particularly to fix my "lack of girlfriend" problem, but more generally in my quest for useful knowledge. Essentially instead of always "trying to do the right thing", I armed myself with the knowledge required to actually be able to DO "the right things" without floundering when the opportunity presented itself. 

Essentially it seems to boil down to if you are not tall, have no money, and not handsome or possessed with much in the way of "Charisma" then there's only one winning strategy for a sigma male.

LEARN HOW TO BE NICE and genuinely connect with people in positive ways.. I didn't learn from genetics or experience, so I needed a book.

It's that simple.    

One clarificaton I'd offer about "rape", is that it has I am informed very little to do with sex and much more to do with a perverted excercise of "power" carried out by a few confused and unpleasant men, and is not in fact as some seem to think an inevitable consequence of masculinity or frustrated masculine desire.

I walked away from my screen at the start of a rape scene that occured in a film we were watching during film night because I found it personally revolting and simply chose not to "let it into my head" but I left the film running assuming that the other bloke who was watching it would have no such qualms, so brainwashed into a poorview of my fellow men that I when after a suitable time had passed and I returned to the film I was suprised to find that my mate had logged out from the session and was texting me to say that he didn't want to wacth the film anymore, and was going to do something else. 

Now that you have taken me to the point of understanding why what seemed to be a simple joke along the lines of "the only way i am likely to get a woman is to kidnap one" could be actually seen as hurtful or triggering to a subset of people that I know to be unacceptably high, rape victims (of either sex TBF). I won't be making that humour again.   

I Sperg said:

I'm well aware of Rule 7 and I am genuinely mystified as to how a clearly humourous and non-serious suggestion that "gaffa tape and cloroform" could be a route to obtaining a relationship violates that rule. 

It is bad taste to make jokes about rape when there may be victims of rape reading the forums.

I didn't report you and I have very very rarely used that function ... however, I know of several women and a few others who have left this forum because of offensive or triggering matter here - I know because they either PMd me or stated so in the forums.

I'm well aware of Rule 7 and I am genuinely mystified as to how a clearly humourous and non-serious suggestion that "gaffa tape and cloroform" could be a route to obtaining a relationship violates that rule. 

Let's take a look and try and work it out, shall we? 

1. Sexism? We are given no information as to the original posters sex or relationship requirements. So it can't be sexism.

2.Homophobia racism ntisemitism reliious intolerance transphobia, all of those we can exclude on the same grounds.

3. Disabilty hate speech? not really... 

4 Hate speech? Who is the object of hatred here? (There's a hypothetical victim of a hypothetical crime, but all the adults in the room know that there is not real proposal of a crime here). Of course there is an implicit hatred of humour being expressed here...

5. Obscenities? Well that's pretty much in the eye of the beholder is it not? MOST of modern society is a string of obscenities for some individuals, and a glorious rainbow pageant of self actualisation for others. GIven that the music track atatched below is in the public domain and widely broadcast I think the post  managed to stay on the right side of that legally speaking.

6. Pornogaphy? Nope.

So how exactly did I break that rule? Where is the hatred inerent in that post?