But What Did S/He MEAN By That?

Since Asperger syndrome and the Asperger spectrum of personality disorders have become more and more understood, I find myself in that spectrum. One of the ways I know that is that I tend to hear what people say. Exactly what they say. Most people do NOT hear much of anything, they simply make up some ideas that they want to believe and if a few of the words they hear can be fit into those ideas, "great!"

If you have trouble understanding that, get ready to discover you are one of those who do NOT listen, but rather make up something else that you think better explains what I am saying.

First imagine we are sitting in a restaurant after a nice meal, maybe having a drink in the bar after eating. I say to you: "I have never raped a woman in the front seat of my car after tying her to the car seat."

OK, take a moment then tell me if you thought: "That is good. Most guys do not tie up women in the front seat of his car and rape her, and I am glad he is just one more of this group."

OR would you assume that I had done that... had tied a woman to the front seat and raped her. Would you be wondering, "How does one do that? There isn't enough room there, is there?"

Would you be trying to decide if I had only done this once, or if maybe that was my S.O.P. (standard operating procedure).

If someone had told ME that, I would have started with the idea that he (she) wanted me to know that s/he had never tied someone to the front seat and raped them. Then I would parse each part of the statement to consider what each word might also mean. And what was NOT said. Easy example: maybe he always killed the people he tied to the front seat... whatever happened after that would not be rape. Which brings the word "rape" into focus. What one person considers rape may not be to someone else? Easy to imagine some authority that considers what he does (using his position of authority) is NOT rape, but if some worker-bee did it, that guy would be a rapist.

At this point, you are probably thinking that I do not understand the "context" aspect of a conversation. But actually I probably understand it a lot better than you realize. I consider dozens of possible meanings-- most people stop at ONE... namely, the one they thought of first.

Under all this is HOW we evaluate problems (including the problem of understanding each other and what we are trying to communicate).

Why limit any statement more than is needed? In this case, why mention only TIE and FRONT SEAT and MY CAR ... why WOMAN... why RAPE? All those make the statement VERY VERY limited because as made, the statement leaves LOT of nasty stuff that was not mentioned.

Should I have claimed "I have never restrained anyone." "I have never intentionally harmed anyone." Two statements that cover a lot of ground and seem even more unlikely than the first statement.

Humans may be very different from other animals because the left hemisphere of the brain (usually the left) has become specialized to do logic, rules, math, and language. The right brain has been exposed to all the same stuff that the left brain learned from... but like the dumb kid in class, they really don't think any of this is relevant to THEM. They are busy thinking what they would like to do with the pretty teacher, or with that pretty girl who has her knees slightly apart so that if she would just move them apart a little more, he could see her crotch. That is not the way to think if you are interested in learning algebra, it is the way to think if you are interested in removing a bra.

With the above FACTS in mind, I can finally begin my story. You will be happy to know that it starts with my telling a pretty girl at brunch: "I have never tied anyone to my car seat and raped them." Do you note that I did not specify age or sex... "never tied anyone".

Her reply was simple enough: "Why tell me THAT?"

A very good question. And if you think about that for a while, it will be ALL YOUR THOUGHTS, not my thoughts and probably not related to anything I ever have done.

Your first guess might wonder if maybe someone was accusing me of some similar, the statement might be a denial... but try denying some outrageous accusation and you will discover that denial does NOT work.

I'm sure Richard Nixon learned something about that by stating with clarity: "I AM NOT A CROOK." And as usual, the right brain hears CROOK! and the left brain hears "crook, am, .... not". Which may be why some languages have word order that matches that way of thinking. First the IMAGE, then negate it if you can. But when the statement does not really allow for a negative image, the positive one remains.

Thus the old joke line: "Do NOT think about a polar bear!"

And if you were told to not think about a polar bear...then asked:

"OK, are you thinking about a polar bear?".. even if you were not, you would be now.

Sorry to take so long with the story... let me "recap" in case you skipped everything up to here: "I am with a young girl and I have told her that I have never tied anyone to my car and raped them."

How should I truthfully answer her question about "why I told her that?" I need to explain that Asperger folk tend to tell way too much truth. Everyone else simply says things that are thought to be in the best interest of the speaker, or which will result in good things for the speaker.

Most males just "make a move" and expect to persist until stopped, if the female can figure out how to do that. Guns and knives might work, or might not. Words might work, but often do not. "STOP THAT." would seem to be a clear statement, but it often heard as a suggestion to move on to something better, NOT to stop everything. How many couples have a "safe word" that means "stop everything until we can discuss the situation"?

Do YOU? I had given my lovely friend a "safe word" but I doubt she realized she would ever need one... maybe she won't if she decided at that moment she would always do exactly what I wanted to do (with her, to her, on her, in her).

Examples shout when words give out.

A woman who wants to NOT HAVE SEX has a lot of ways to communicate that, but what can she say that will be understood? First, anything with a "Not" or negative that needs to be performed by the listener is a danger.

If she says anything vague like "don't know you well enough to do that"... every male knows that she probably has "done it" with guys she barely knew. The protest is a request to get to know him better, and being more forceful about getting sex is certainly exactly THAT.

If she says "I don't want to do that"... duh.. if she wanted to, she would already be doing it. People who use "don't want to" as a reason to not comply with a request should really be saying: "I want to NOT do that and I will not be doing that." This is a quick way to get fired from a job, but also explains why "I don't want to" is a very LAME excuse. People do all kinds of things, most of us daily, that we do NOT want to do. We just do them because... they need to be done and nobody else is going to.

If she says, "I'm not that kind of girl." it only means she does not know what the hell she is talking about because for sure she has not surveyed all the women who have had sex with me to find out "what kind of girl" does that.

If she says, "No!".. I tend to wonder what I am supposed to know, and often ask "Know what?". Why provide a negative without ANY qualification?

So let's assume she has repeatedly insisted that any mutual activity or touching be preceded by a REQUEST for PERMISSION to proceed.

I would enjoy going into great detail about why any vague request will often receive "don't understand" as if she were some kind of artificial stupidity (not AI). Let me provide some possible requests and you can figure out why they are defective. When I get to the "winner", I will continue the discussion after all the requests that are "too vague to understand".

"Would you allow me to love you?"

"Would you allow me to make love to you?"

Note these are questions, NOT request for permission.

Blah blah mentioned below is any kind of compliment, best adjusted to whatever the victim seems most proud of: appearance, smile, intelligence, humor... hell, why not list them all?

"blah blah... I want to kiss you." (Not a request... she will think you probably want to do a lot more than that but you simply can't be totally honest with her. But if she replied, "Please tell me exactly what you want.", she would not be pleased to learn about some of the details, which you may know will eventually enhance any sexual encounter YOU have, but she may misunderstand.

Why be honest when people can't understand or work with HONESTY. "I would really like to stop by your place for a few minutes every day and either have you suck me off, or a quickie fuck that would not take more than the BJ would."

Even if that is exactly what a woman has done with her last seven boyfriends, you can be certain they did not request it and that she did not consent. It simply HAPPENED, and once it got going, she knew she would "lose" the boyfriend if she protested.

So let's assume the rule about "asking first" is just bullshit because the format of the request was not explained. Now we will pretend that the format is:

"I am (hereby) asking for your permission to kiss your cheek right now, here in this car. Once. No tongue. No other touching."

The "once" and other qualifications should have been INSIDE the request, but I moved them out to make it more obvious that trying to explain every single detail is a long process, much akin to a contract that could be one page but ends up book-sized.

Marriage agreements are short. Divorce agreements tend to be at least as long as the US Constitution.

Now suppose she agrees and replies with the same detail (not just "OK" or "that sounds nice" (which, incidentally, is NOT consent). HER reply should be in the form: "I grant you permission to kiss my cheek once, right now, for less than three seconds, (new element!!) and only if there is no tongue involved and no other touching."

At this point, would I kiss her cheek? NO NO NO ... I would explain that if I can't touch her, she will need to pull down her pants herself, to expose the cheek she wants kissed.

Note: did you recognize that I turned my request into "what she wants"?

Feminists insist (and they probably are correct) that simply proceeding slowly and expecting the woman to stop you... does not consider that she may be AFRAID to stop you! But that includes cases where she will decide later that is why she did not stop you. Once you are actually DOING something, it is too late to request permission... but before you do it, there is no way at all for her to know HOW you will do it. If you do not make clear the details, she may explain that "I don't understand EXACTLY what you mean". Even the short single kiss without touching was vague enough to confuse her... so why not EXPECT some reaction to what actually happens?

So she decides to withdraw consent to the cheek kiss, doesn't that mean you have no restriction in terms of tongue and touching? She did agree, so maybe the only problem is that she is too fucking lazy to pull down her pants... but like the true gentleman you are, you decided to help without waiting to be asked.

Don't we all want others to KNOW WHAT WE WANT AND JUST DO IT? While we wait for them to request in deatil what they want, and may limit our fullfillment of the request in each and every way that was not specified in the original request.

That kind of detail is not required by sex workers, so why would it be considered useful for romantic entanglements?

BTW: the best way to provide a negative is to create some POSITIVE that does not have to be too closely related.

Another example: The guy (OK, me!) asks "I want your permission to caress your body, including all parts except your cornea.. in the expectation you will help me learn which kinds of caresses you do or do not enjoy."

Instead of "Just say NO", a woman could reply, "I will accept gifts that can be sold for money, or the money itself".

You asked for her permission... and she provided A permission for you to act upon. Do you want to do what she permits, or WHAT?

Anyway, forget all that... I suspect you already have. I am back there after brunch talking with a girl who is really a woman approaching middle-age (actually IS middle-age but she may read this). I have told her a FACT and she did seem interested in WHY I told her THAT FACT. She did not question its accuracy. She did not suggest she was more interested in my "future perfomance" than in past events that might not be repeated. Which would seem to be more important to her because she was not accusing me of rape, or even accusing me of bondage in my car OR ANYPLACE. (Same for the rape, she was not accusing me and had not asked about any accusation... so why didn't I tell her how cute Koalas are (until they want to mate and have to kill another cute koala to get at the pussy).

This is too difficult to explain and I doubt you care to understand it fully. I do have a lot more thoughts about it... but I will skip to the CONCLUSION: Just do whatever you want to do and pay attention to whether someone is strong enough to stop you, or influential enough to screw you later somehow (legally or illegally).

What actually happened was that I invited her into my old Chevy and had a belt ready to hold her neck to the neck brace. After that, I had a roll of duct tape, which is to say I USED my roll of duct tape. That stuff is good for EVERYTHING that WD-40 can't do.. and I should mention that WD-40 will remove that goo that duct tape sometimes leaves).

IF I had used the duct tape to wrap up my cock, I probably would not be in jail now... and the entire evening might have been more fun to remember or talk about. How to remove duct tape from around your cock and balls!! The answer is? "Carefully" and maybe "under anesthesia"... but really it would not be much worse than getting "waxed" to remove hair, would it? Duct tape make a little stronger might be a cheap replacement for expensive embarrassing wax treatments (unless have a professional play with your genitals is part of the plan). My defense was excellent but was ignored: "She never said the safe word".

===first draft below

Since Asperger syndrome and spectrum have become more and more understood, I find myself in that spectrum. One of the ways I know that is that I tend to hear what people say. Exactly what they say. Most people do NOT hear much of anything, they simply make up some ideas that they want to believe and if a few of the words they hear can be fit into those ideas, "great!".

If you have trouble understanding that, get ready to discover you are one of those who do NOT listen, but rather make up something else that you think better explains what I am saying.

First imagine we are sitting in a restaurant after a nice meal, maybe having a drink in the bar after eating. I say to you: "I have never raped a woman in the front seat of my car after tying her to the car seat."

OK, take a moment then tell me if you thought: "That is good. Most guys do not tie up women in the front seat of his car and rape her, and I am glad he is just one more of this group."

OR would you assume that I had done that... had tied a woman to the front seat and raped her. Would you be wondering, "How does one do that? There isn't enough room there, is there?"

Would you be trying to decide if I had only done this once, or if maybe that was my S.O.P. (standard operating procedure).

If someone had told ME that, I would have started with the idea that he (she) wanted me to know that s/he had never tied someone to the front seat and raped them. Then I would parse each part of the statement to consider what each word might also mean. And what was NOT said. Easy example: maybe he always killed the people he tied to the front seat... whatever happened after that would not be rape. Which brings the word "rape" into focus. What one person considers rape may not be to someone else? Easy to imagine some authority that considers what he does (using his position of authority) is NOT rape, but if some worker-bee did it, that guy would be a rapist.

At this point, you are probably thinking that I do not understand the "context" aspect of a conversation. But actually I probably understand it a lot better than you realize. I consider dozens of possible meanings-- most people stop at ONE... namely, the one they thought of first.

Under all this is HOW we evaluate problems (including the problem of understanding each other and what we are trying to communicate). Humans may be very different from other animals because the left hemisphere of the brain (usually the left) has become specialized to do logic, rules, math, and language. The right brain has been exposed to all the same stuff that the left brain learned from... but like the dumb kid in class, they really don't think any of this is relevant to THEM. They are busy thinking what they would like to do with the pretty teacher, or with that pretty girl who has her knees slightly apart so that if she would just move them apart a little more, he could see her crotch. That is not the way to think if you are interested in learning algebra, it is the way to think if you are interested in removing a bra.

With the above FACTS in mind, I can finally begin my story. You will be happy to know that it starts with my telling a pretty girl at brunch: "I have never tied anyone to my car seat and raped them." Do you note that I did not specify age or sex... "never tied anyone".

Her reply was simple enough: "Why tell me THAT?"

A very good question. And if you think about that for a while, it will be ALL YOUR THOUGHTS, not my thoughts and probably not related to anything I ever have done.

Your first guess might wonder if maybe someone was accusing me of some similar, the statement might be a denial... but try denying some outrageous accusation and you will discover that denial does NOT work.

I'm sure Richard Nixon learned something about that by stating with clarity: "I AM NOT A CROOK." And as usual, the right brain hears CROOK! and the left brain hears "crook, am, .... not". Which may be why some languages have word order that matches that way of thinking. First the IMAGE, then negate it if you can. But when the statement does not really allow for a negative image, the positive one remains.

Thus the old joke line: "Do NOT think about a polar bear!"

And if you were told to not think about a polar bear...then asked:

"OK, are you thinking about a polar bear?".. even if you were not, you would be now.

Sorry to take so long with the story... let me "recap" in case you skipped everything up to here: "I am with a young girl and I have told her that I have never tied anyone to my car and raped them."

How should I truthfully answer her question about "why I told her that?" I need to explain that Asperger folk tend to tell way too much truth. Everyone else simply says things that are thought to be in the best interest of the speaker, or which will result in good things for the speaker.

Most males just "make a move" and expect to persist until stopped, if the female can figure out how to do that. Guns and knives might work, or might not. Words might work, but often do not. "STOP THAT." would seem to be a clear statement, but it often heard as a suggestion to move on to something better, NOT to stop everything. How many couples have a "safe word" that means "stop everything until we can discuss the situation"?

Do YOU? I had given my lovely friend a "safe word" but I doubt she realized she would ever need one... maybe she won't if she decided at that moment she would always do exactly what I wanted to do (with her, to her, on her, in her).