Re: Personal ad

[Guest guest]

Jane wrote:

> Clay wrote:

> >...That is unfair, but I don't see any way around it,

> >ingrained as it is in man's psyche.

> There are a lot of attitudes " ingrained " in human psyches.

> That's no reason to nurture or give in to them. Prejudice

> against those who are " different, " for example.

I hope they come and get me if I ever take a notion to argue

with you. ;-) You're right, of course.

> >But women are just as guilty, and compare themselves with

> >others constantly, and buy billions of dollars worth of

> >cosmetics to give themselves an edge in the competition.

> >(I know You don't do that, nor most women here.)

> What other (anonymous, assumed-to-be-typical) people do is a

> standard by which you choose to evaluate your own behavior?

I also see other things, besides the exterior " package " . Give

me a little credit for these lines:

> In this case, the lady had cropped her picture to show only

> half of her face. It was enough for me to see the kindness and

> intelligence there. She isn't hard or cynical, but is graceful

> and confident.

Anyway, this may all be moot. I haven't heard back from her yet,

and she may not even have read my post yet, as she may be at Mass

or something. Being Irish and Spanish, there's a good chance that

she is Catholic, and educating her about Asperger's, as well as

about Islam and Sufism, seems like a huge task. Daunting.

Clay

[Guest guest]

If she cropped the picture herself--it seems she is

trying to tell you nice things. If the photographer

cropped her portrait, maybe he is accenting her best

qualities.

You will have to tell how she compares to her picture.

People always look differently than their picture to

me.

So you can tell unspoken things about people by

looking at their faces?

~Bonnie

- - -

Only the right side of her face

> showed.

> One eye, (with a bit too much make-up), a nicely

> shaped, (not

> bulbous) nose, a thin but attractive pair of lips

> (with lip-

> stick), a cleft chin (think Kirk ), and a

> soft and

> somewhat puffy cheek. Her cheek looked very nice,

> inviting.

> Says she's Irish, Spanish, and native American. And

- - -

with few exceptions, people

> actually " are "

> exactly what they look like,

__________________________________________________

[Guest guest]

Ari wrote:

>It's more than a bit off topic, but that reminds me of a fascinating

>question. To what extent are we - not so much as individuals but as a

>community or as a society or even a civilization - bound by human

>nature? Is it too much to expect that someday humanity will be able to

>rise to be better than it is? Should we instead work to use the

>lessons of human behavior to create the best possible world we can

>create?

Another part to the question might be: Is one-by-one the only way (or

the best way) for people to change? If so, that has implications for

the work we do.

Jane

[Guest guest]

Bonnie wrote:

> If she cropped the picture herself--it seems she is

> trying to tell you nice things. If the photographer

> cropped her portrait, maybe he is accenting her best

> qualities.

It is curious why it was cropped to only show one side,

I mentioned it when I wrote her. I would think she did

it herself, it's not a portrait type picture.

> You will have to tell how she compares to her picture.

> People always look differently than their picture to

> me.

If and when I see her, I'll let you all know.

> So you can tell unspoken things about people by

> looking at their faces?

Yes, but I don't assume that I'm correct in what I perceive

that way. I like to have some concrete evidence that what

I think I see is correct. I make mental notes, and check

them later.

Clay

[Guest guest]

I think it's the best way in terms of change that's the most meaningful. But

I don't think it's the most practical way. In this larger, fast-paced world,

we need a way to reach the masses and, I think, appeal to things that are

already within them and put our argument in terms that they will understand.

Individuals can have new concepts introduced to them and be brought about

that way. Societies require building upon the foundations that are already

there. In my opinion, that's a fundamental truth about human nature that we

should be taking into account.

There will be the people who go further than that, and consider the

underlying subtexts, ideology and meaning in what we believe. Those will

probably be the ones who become not only supporters but advocates and

members of our movements. Who not only support neurological diversity if

approached, but go out and *fight* for it, with all their talents and

abilities. But we also need to understand that there must also be a way of

gaining the support of the general populace as well, or else we will not

achieve the mass influence we need in a democratic age.

That's why I've focused on ideas like equality, diversity and tolerance in

my advocacy. These are universally accepted and established ideas. If we

could associate in people's minds neurological bigotry with racial,

religious and gender-based bigotry, we can shift the opinions of large

groups of people far faster. Given the strength and methods of our

opponents, I think that's going to be necessary in general, although we

should continue to develop a more well thought out ideology, with all the

subtleties that entails. I recall, I think it was and/or Camille who

was writing this, reading a comment on a blog, saying that there was a real

problem in arguing our position in that we have very

complex, thought-requiring arguments whereas our opposition has basic

talking points that call up in people's minds to more established (and thus

not requiring justification) concepts and arguments. We need to consider how

we can best call up concepts and ideals in people that will support our

position, and associate our advocacy and ideas with those concepts.

-Ari

>

> Ari wrote:

> >It's more than a bit off topic, but that reminds me of a fascinating

> >question. To what extent are we - not so much as individuals but as a

> >community or as a society or even a civilization - bound by human

> >nature? Is it too much to expect that someday humanity will be able to

> >rise to be better than it is? Should we instead work to use the

> >lessons of human behavior to create the best possible world we can

> >create?

>

> Another part to the question might be: Is one-by-one the only way (or

> the best way) for people to change? If so, that has implications for

> the work we do.

>

> Jane

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

> It is curious why it was cropped to only show one

> side,

***

This is why I inquired. When you said half her face

was cropped, I thought from the nose up and wondered

for details.

Half a face lengthwise tells interesting things:

My father was a boisterous, demanding character. The

only time he was remotely pensive was when he became

nostalgic in his last days.

I have one photograph of him I took when he was facing

away from me. This profile shot is like no other

photograph ever taken of him--he looks pleasant yet

thinking deeply about something. Everybody who sees it

(and knows my father) remarks about it. I think it

captures something a full-face view would not.

I visited a photography website that used profiles and

lighting to show the various moods that can be

captured from the same pose.

Maybe she sent a profile because a picture tells more

than words.

***

***

> > So you can tell unspoken things about people by

> > looking at their faces?

>

> Yes,

***

After you laugh at this, think about it.

Do you feel something in a person's presence that

tells you something about them?

~Bonnie

__________________________________________________

[Guest guest]

Ari wrote:

> That's why I've focused on ideas like equality, diversity and

> tolerance in my advocacy. These are universally accepted and

> established ideas.

It may be more effective in the long run - to have lots of kids.

;-)

Clay

[Guest guest]

Bonnie wrote:

> This is why I inquired. When you said half her face

> was cropped, I thought from the nose up and wondered

> for details.

That would be too " Kilroy wuz here " . ;-)

> Half a face lengthwise tells interesting things:

I think you forgot to say what it's supposed to tell.

> My father was a boisterous, demanding character. The

> only time he was remotely pensive was when he became

> nostalgic in his last days.

> I have one photograph of him I took when he was facing

> away from me. This profile shot is like no other

> photograph ever taken of him--he looks pleasant yet

> thinking deeply about something. Everybody who sees it

> (and knows my father) remarks about it. I think it

> captures something a full-face view would not.

> I visited a photography website that used profiles and

> lighting to show the various moods that can be

> captured from the same pose.

> Maybe she sent a profile because a picture tells more

> than words.

It wasn't a profile though, taken from the side. It was

nearly straight on, but the right side of the picture

cut off.

> > > So you can tell unspoken things about people by

> > > looking at their faces?

> > Yes,

> After you laugh at this, think about it.

> Do you feel something in a person's presence that

> tells you something about them?

But absolutement! Vibes.

Clay

[Guest guest]

Here!

Sorry, couldn't resist.

Elayne

http://www.huntfamilyhome.net

" The government thinks you're an idiot. " -- Radley Balko,

www.theagitator.com

> -----Original Message-----

> From: Clay

> It may be more effective in the long run - to have lots of kids.

> ;-)

[Guest guest]

Elayne wrote:

> Here!

> Sorry, couldn't resist.

> http://www.huntfamilyhome.net

Very impressive, 5 kids, including triplets. I think I was

one who couldn't stand wet or poopy diapers either, but also

couldn't stand to be powdered. (gag) I was born in ,

not all that far away. I think I recall that our school

played Mason.

Clay

> > -----Original Message-----

> > From: Clay

> > It may be more effective in the long run - to have lots of kids.

> > ;-)

>

[Guest guest]

Please educate me...

>> Clay wrote:

>> I just responded to a personal ad I found on craigslist.

>> The lady seems quite nice, not bad looking for 45...

Jane wrote:

> !!!!

> That's the kind of thing I'd like to be able to think of as

> an " NT attitude. " But, as I'm often reminded (here and in

> other autie groupings), we as a group are not immune.

I get the impression that the comment was not PC, but I'm not

sure of where.

" The lady seems quite nice, not bad looking for 45... "

" The lady " ? - I tend to use " woman " , or use " girl " if it's clear

that men are referred to as " boys " . Also " girl " for minors

(although I know some will disagree).

" quite nice " - yep, that's okay.

" not bad looking " ? - I know that places physical appearance at a

high order, but part of physical attraction is physical

attraction. Should one avoid speaking about it, even if that's

how one is motivated? Should one tell themselves that physical

attaaction doesn't exist?

" for 45 " - As Clay stated, he's beyond that age. I don't think

the suggestion in this case is that only women under 40 or 30

are suitable.

" not bad looking for 45 " ? - That can mean various things,

including a value that people " should " look good for their age,

or that 45 is too old unless the person is not bad looking for

that age. I don't think Clay implied the latter but I'm not

Clay and hadn't discussed his feelings about women with him.

Anyhow, please fill me in as to what one should avoid (in the

context of that statement) if one does not wish to offend.

- s

[Guest guest]

Stan wrote:

> " not bad looking " ? - I know that places physical appearance at

> a high order, but part of physical attraction is physical

> attraction. Should one avoid speaking about it, even if that's

> how one is motivated? Should one tell themselves that physical

> attraction doesn't exist?

Thanks, Stan, that puts it in perspective. Case in point:

I recently saw the old movie " Sayonara " , 1957, starring Marlon

and Miiko Taka. Who's she, you ask? A lovely Japanese-

American actress, born in Seattle, 1932, who played Hanna Ogi,

the female lead, the " number one " Mitsubayashi performer with

whom Marlon falls in love.

Aside from the slight difference in eyelid folds, her resemblance

to the woman I fell in love with back in 1984 was startling, uh,

upsetting (to me), and romantically nostalgic. The woman, (Miiko),

was beautiful by anyone's standards, yes, but what made her the

" number one " Mitsubayashi performer? Simply stated, her " presence " ,

her grace (which, by Japanese standards, is saying something), her

demure glance and obvious virtue and talent set her apart from all

the other performers. In looking at her, I felt no lust or base

instinct for carnal knowledge; but desire, yes, to " drink in " all

of her tangible and intangible charms. To see, to touch, to feel,

to share, to be immersed in her essence in its totality.

I know that may sound like a description of carnal knowledge, but

there's a difference between the sacred and the profane experiences

of it. The problem is, on the physical plane, there's not much

difference in *how* they are finally accomplished. :-/ Alas, that

was the conundrum I faced back in '84 - I desired the one, but was

mistaken as wanting the other, and I didn't know how to communicate

the differentiation. To add to my confusion, in retrospect I real-

ized that there's the possibility that I was wrong about that, and

that she knew very well the nature of my desire, but SHE wanted the

carnal version, as so many women seem to do, the way they talk on

" Sex in the City " or other shows.

For awhile, I nearly drove myself crazy trying to figure that one

out - and *I still don't know*!!! All I know for sure is that I

desire the one, but absolutely don't want the other, and that makes

me the " odd man out " in this world.

Clay (who still hasn't heard back from the one on craigslist)

[Guest guest]

> The problem is, on the physical plane,

> there's not much difference in *how* they are finally

> accomplished. ... and that she knew very

> well the nature of my desire, but SHE wanted the carnal version,

> as so many women seem to do, the way they talk on " Sex in the

> City " or other shows.

The reason is simple. In a mature relationship (and some may

argue in any relationship), the physical aspect is a reflection

of the emotional or spiritual-like aspect. This is of course a

built-in human drive, much as the outer brain's amplification of

pain is intimately tied in with pain sensations.

The need for physical as an accompanyment to emotional may be

more so with women than men because of the tendency of men in

the past to ignore (or pretend to ignore) the emotional side of

a relationship.

> For awhile, I nearly drove myself crazy trying to figure that one

> out - and *I still don't know*!!!

Easy -- there is a difference, but that doesn't result in the

emotional/spiritual-like from being separate.

> All I know for sure is that I

> desire the one, but absolutely don't want the other, and that

> makes me the " odd man out " in this world.

Or just not interested in " the other " (which I presume means

sex).

- s

[Guest guest]

> All I know for sure is that I

> desire the one, but absolutely don't want the other, and that

> makes me the " odd man out " in this world.

I forgot the obvious " answer " . Post an personal ad expressing

an interest in a (fill in the definition) relationship, without

the physical intimacy (I may have that one wrong, but without

whatever you don't want).

In some parts of the country, a quirky or " different " interest

is almost de rigueur in meeting people.

Whatever your interests, you won't be the first to express them

in a personal ad. My understanding is that there are 3

limitations:

1. cost;

2. staying legal (don't ask for " must look good for 17 " ) <g>;

3. avoiding attracting predators.

-s

[Guest guest]

Clay wrote, in part:

>> I know that may sound like a description of carnal knowledge, but

there's a difference between the sacred and the profane experiences

of it. <<

I was going to stay out of this, Clay, but I can't.

Everyone is entitled to their own sexual or romantic fantasy, but

there's a danger in labeling your feelings sacred and someone else's

profane.

Women (and gays) have suffered and continue to suffer today in many

places for the mere expression of sexuality – the consequence often

being death. More have suffered because someone else put them on a

pedestal, as an example of " obvious virtue, " only to find them

human, with (profane) human desires.

No one's sexuality or lack thereof carries with it any moral

superiority. (My opinion.)

- Debra

[Guest guest]

Nobody powders babies anymore, and I keep wondering what that was for.

Don't know where is. I've only been in Michigan for three years, and

I still want to go home so badly that last week I was willing to go back to

work and put the kids in government school if that's what it took!

Temporary insanity, it passed...

Elayne

http://www.huntfamilyhome.net

" The government thinks you're an idiot. " -- Radley Balko,

www.theagitator.com

> -----Original Message-----

> From: Clay

> Very impressive, 5 kids, including triplets. I think I was

> one who couldn't stand wet or poopy diapers either, but also

> couldn't stand to be powdered. (gag) I was born in ,

> not all that far away. I think I recall that our school

> played Mason.

[Guest guest]

Debra wrote:

>Everyone is entitled to their own sexual or romantic fantasy, but

>there's a danger in labeling your feelings sacred and someone else's

>profane....

>No one's sexuality or lack thereof carries with it any moral

>superiority. (My opinion.)

Well put. I haven't been following the thread closely enough to know

to what extent Clay may have been veering toward any of that. But as

a general statement of principle, it's a good one. (My opinion.)

Jane

[Guest guest]

Debra wrote:

> Clay wrote, in part:

> >I know that may sound like a description of carnal knowledge,

> >but there's a difference between the sacred and the profane

> >experiences of it. <<

> Everyone is entitled to their own sexual or romantic fantasy,

> but there's a danger in labeling your feelings sacred and some-

> one else's profane.

Oh no, I wasn't doing that. Anyone is capable of doing either.

Uh, it's so hard to explain. The difference is where the activity

takes place, in the mind or in the body. Is the emphasis on the

physical gratification or the melding of two minds in the process?

As I said in the paragraph just before the one you quoted, the act

doesn't *look* a whole lot different, the only difference is in the

mind, in the intentions of the participants. It doesn't work if one

is doing the one thing, but the other is doing the other.

> Women (and gays) have suffered and continue to suffer today in

> many places for the mere expression of sexuality – the consequence

> often being death.

I'm not saying anything about that.

> More have suffered because someone else put them on a pedestal,

> as an example of " obvious virtue, " only to find them human, with

> (profane) human desires.

Hmmm, I will think about that.

> No one's sexuality or lack thereof carries with it any moral

> superiority. (My opinion.)

I didn't say that either. I'll agree with what you said.

Clay

[Guest guest]

Elayne wrote:

> Nobody powders babies anymore, and I keep wondering what that

> was for.

They don't? I thought it was to prevent diaper rash. Anyway,

I have vague memories of fighting it, because I can't stand

powder. (cough, gag)

> Don't know where is.

You gotta know where is. is maybe 30 miles

south and east of there, towards Toledo.

Clay

[Guest guest]

I just heard from her, (finally!).

" You sound just wonderful. My name is Judith.

My other email is _______. I hope to hear from

you in the future.

Caio for naio,

Judy "

I already wrote her back. (What am I getting into?)

Clay

[Guest guest]

Something fascinating, I imagine. Good luck with this!

Ari

>

>

> I just heard from her, (finally!).

>

> " You sound just wonderful. My name is Judith.

> My other email is _______. I hope to hear from

> you in the future.

>

> Caio for naio,

> Judy "

>

> I already wrote her back. (What am I getting into?)

>

> Clay

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

>

> Nobody powders babies anymore, and I keep wondering what that was for.

>

To absorb moisture. Babies' skin is very sensitive.

Excessive moisture + rubbing/chafing on cloth diapers = sore.

[Guest guest]

I thought maybe, but I've never had a problem with cloth diapers. My babies

get terrible rashes from disposable diapers (which absorb all the moisture

on their own), but have never had a problem with cloth.

Elayne

http://www.huntfamilyhome.net

" The government thinks you're an idiot. " -- Radley Balko,

www.theagitator.com

> -----Original Message-----

> From: nannersone

> To absorb moisture. Babies' skin is very sensitive.

> Excessive moisture + rubbing/chafing on cloth diapers = sore.