Aspergers and Sex

Sh3ld0n wrote:

shock_the_monkey wrote: i once knew someone who had worked his way through the entire secretarial pool, much to the annoyance of their supervisor. and he was a most unremarkable person.

Presumably you mean physically unremarkable...
Clearly he was remark in that he did achieve what he achieved...

to be clear: in every other way he was a most unremarkable person. i personally wouldn't consider being promiscuous as remarkable, at least not in any positive way. indeed, he did have as certain notoriety for this.

happy???

The secretaries were probably unremarkable as well.

BOOM

Sh3ld0n wrote:

shock_the_monkey wrote:i once knew someone who had worked his way through the entire secretarial pool, much to the annoyance of their supervisor. and he was a most unremarkable person.

Presumably you mean physically unremarkable...
Clearly he was remark in that he did achieve what he achieved...

Oh look Shock, Sh3ld0n misinterpreted something you said! It was clear what you meant, I mean I got it so it must have been obvious . Ohhh SHAME on Sh3ld0n!!

neal88 wrote:The secretaries were probably unremarkable as well.

BOOM

LOL, good one neal, and true I'm sure!

slugger wrote:Oh look Shock, Sh3ld0n misinterpreted something you said! It was clear what you meant, I mean I got it so it must have been obvious . Ohhh SHAME on Sh3ld0n!!

he's just being pedantic to show off that allegedly flawless logical mind of his!!!

slugger wrote:

neal88 wrote:The secretaries were probably unremarkable as well.

BOOM

LOL, good one neal, and true I'm sure!

i'm not so sure. women can get pretty desperate too, you know.

shock_the_monkey wrote:

Sh3ld0n wrote:

shock_the_monkey wrote: i once knew someone who had worked his way through the entire secretarial pool, much to the annoyance of their supervisor. and he was a most unremarkable person.

Presumably you mean physically unremarkable...
Clearly he was remark in that he did achieve what he achieved...

to be clear: in every other way he was a most unremarkable person. i personally wouldn't consider being promiscuous as remarkable, at least not in any positive way. indeed, he did have as certain notoriety for this.

happy???

My underlying intention with that post was to attempt to mend bridges between us.
I would rather you and I don't jump to conclusions that we are attacking each other...

So he was physically handsome then...
If this is the case he wasn't all that remarkable since human males and females tend to be rather superficial when it comes to physical sexual appeal...

If his superficiality was generally known, what does that say about the women who engaged with him in horizontal polka?
And why is it wrong to satiate the most primitive primordial urges/lusts if it is done with mutual consent (if not respect) between unattached adult individuals and with a health conscious attitude in mind?

I am no expert in Indian culture, but it is my understanding they have a much healthier philosophical attitude in regards to sexuality compared to christian and Muslim communities/societies. (Please correct me here if I am wrong...)
To my mind, these sexual sensitivities are largely a result of cultural indoctrination rather than any imagined intrinsic absolute morality.

BTW, If sex is so heinous, it should be banned entirely no matter what the situation, surely...

-- Thu Apr 25, 2013 9:30 am --

slugger wrote:
Oh look Shock, Sh3ld0n misinterpreted something you said! It was clear what you meant, I mean I got it so it must have been obvious . Ohhh SHAME on Sh3ld0n!!

Oh don't be a biatch, Penny.
Yes you heard me...<Sheldon gives a stern look>
Do I have to get Koko the gorilla to chastise you?

Sh3ld0n wrote:I am no expert in Indian culture, but it is my understanding they have a much healthier philosophical attitude in regards to sexuality compared to christian and Muslim communities/societies. (Please correct me here if I am wrong...)
To my mind, these sexual sensitivities are largely a result of cultural indoctrination rather than any imagined intrinsic absolute morality.

Uh oh, here we go again.....

Sh3ld0n wrote:Oh don't be a biatch, Penny.
Yes you heard me...<Sheldon gives a stern look>
Do I have to get Koko the gorilla to chastise you?

Ahhhh, but don't you know, she'd be on my side, and she wouldn't like you calling me names!

shock_the_monkey wrote:

slugger wrote:Oh look Shock, Sh3ld0n misinterpreted something you said! It was clear what you meant, I mean I got it so it must have been obvious . Ohhh SHAME on Sh3ld0n!!

he's just being pedantic to show off that allegedly flawless logical mind of his!!!

Could you explain to me the logical connection between what Slugger said and what you said?

Slugger's comment involved this:
I (Sh3ld0n) misinterpreted what you said.

BTW, my thought process went as followed:
I made a presumption/supposition/speculation that the guy was physically unremarkable, since you didn't specifically state in which way he was unremarkable.
You clarified the situation...
"Bob's your uncle..."

Your comment involved this:
I was being pedantic and showing off...

To my way of thinking, a better response to Penny's...I mean Slugger's comment would have been:
You are right Slugger, he can't read minds...
... even though it seems to many, if not most, that he can...

slugger wrote:

Sh3ld0n wrote:I am no expert in Indian culture, but it is my understanding they have a much healthier philosophical attitude in regards to sexuality compared to christian and Muslim communities/societies. (Please correct me here if I am wrong...)
To my mind, these sexual sensitivities are largely a result of cultural indoctrination rather than any imagined intrinsic absolute morality.

Uh oh, here we go again.....

Touche`
Great counter arguement...

slugger wrote:

Sh3ld0n wrote:Oh don't be a biatch, Penny.
Yes you heard me...<Sheldon gives a stern look>
Do I have to get Koko the gorilla to chastise you?

Ahhhh, but don't you know, she'd be on my side, and she wouldn't like you calling me names!

Typical primate mob behaviour...
Picking on a lone individual...

BTW...Unusual you replying to me so quickly this time of day...
Do you have a holiday too?
ANZAC day here in Australia...

Sh3ld0n wrote:

shock_the_monkey wrote:

slugger wrote:Oh look Shock, Sh3ld0n misinterpreted something you said! It was clear what you meant, I mean I got it so it must have been obvious . Ohhh SHAME on Sh3ld0n!!

he's just being pedantic to show off that allegedly flawless logical mind of his!!!

Could you explain to me the logical connection between what Slugger said and what you said?

she's saying you misinterpretted what i wrote. i'm saying you misconstrued what i wrote. and i'm giving my perception of your motivation too, which doesn't really apply to mistakes. we don't make mistakes for any particular reason. a mistake, by it's very nature, is involuntary and therefore without motive. it's not a particularly important point. just a matter of calibration, that's all.

Sh3ld0n wrote:Slugger's comment involved this:
I (Sh3ld0n) misinterpreted what you said.

reading between the lines, she's basically saying: people that live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.

Sh3ld0n wrote:BTW, my thought process went as followed:
I made a presumption/supposition/speculation that the guy was physically unremarkable, since you didn't specifically state in which way he was unremarkable.

had he been specifically unremarkable as opposed to generally unremarkable, i would have made that distinction clear. however, in general the term unremarkable is used in its general context.

Sh3ld0n wrote:Your comment involved this:
I was being pedantic and showing off...

you were nit-picking. and that is the kind of thing that people do to demonstrate their intellectual superiority. and demonstrating superority in any field of endeavour is pretty much synonymous with showing off.

Sh3ld0n wrote:To my way of thinking, a better response to Penny's...I mean Slugger's comment would have been:
You are right Slugger, he can't read minds...
... even though it seems to many, if not most, that he can...

you would have me believe that you're not as smart as you really are. and i simply don't.

Sh3ld0n wrote:My underlying intention with that post was to attempt to mend bridges between us.
I would rather you and I don't jump to conclusions that we are attacking each other...

if i really thought you were attacking me, i wouldn't grace you with a reply. well, not much of one anyway. and certainly not an informative one. believe me, i have a very efficient I/O filters.