5 ms·

Don't underestimate hygiene and fashionable dressing. Don't call a person a "mate."

Will_Parker 9y ago
3 : one of a pair: such as a : either member of a couple and especially a married couple b : either member of a breeding pair of animals c : either of two matched objects Seriously, what's wrong with that?
- travisjungroth 9y ago
  The phrase “attract a mate” is used more for animals than people. When you use it to talk about yourself, it has a tone of referring to the person you’re looking for like an animal. (Same for “breed” and “female”). If you said “find a partner”, “find a match”, “attract a partner”, “get a boyfriend/girlfriend”, it wouldn’t have the same meaning and would be less off-putting.
  - lurr 9y ago
    I don't think saying "find a mate" on hacker news is the problem. Why nitpick trivial things like this on someone you have never met?
    - wand3r 9y ago
      Not op. I think they were attempting to help by socializing them to common parlance. Potentially because IRL they mentioned they dont have a sognificant other it could be because of things like this. Dont know, not op. Think it was meant to be helpful
      - Will_Parker 9y ago
        I have had girlfriends and significant others. What I really wanted to find was a mate. I.e. a pair bond for life with whom I could be myself, and not a social actor.
    - travisjungroth 9y ago
      Only because he asked: > Seriously, what's wrong with that? Maybe he was being rhetorical, but I didn't read it that way.
- ABCLAW 9y ago
  Mate, like 'female', provides a hint of depersonalization - it indicates that the person you're seeking is sought after to fill a procreative role. This is also the reason for the de-emphasis on Mrs. in professional settings. "Significant Other" and other terms are more readily accepted.
  - Will_Parker 9y ago
    > it indicates that the person you're seeking is sought after to fill a procreative role. Indeed, if you've been following the last billion years or so, a procreative role is a common reason why males and females seek each other out. I admit I don't understand why openly seeking to reproduce is to be frowned on. (And a larger point is that people on the spectrum don't take very well to social conventions that are based on tide and fashion instead of reason and logic and clear communication. I decided long ago I'd rather be a lonely tiger than a really terrible pack wolf.)
    - ABCLAW 9y ago
      Openly seeking to reproduce is not frowned upon. Plenty of people get married, have kids, and are fairly straightforward about their intentions regarding family. No one has an issue with this. This is a private issue, to be discussed with your partner. However, publicly seeking someone to be nothing but a baby-factory for you is frowned upon for most people in public, because people like being valued for more than their sexual organs. Hence when you refer to people as 'female' or as a 'mate' in certain contexts, there's a hint of a creep. Calling the new VP a 'hot piece of ass' is censurable for the same reason: because it minimizes her value as a person, professional and team member, regardless of how accurate the assessment regarding how nice her butt is. Trying to frame this as a 'fashion' vs 'logic' trade-off is nonsensical.
      - Will_Parker 9y ago
        > Trying to frame this as a 'fashion' vs 'logic' trade-off is nonsensical. It's a tradeoff in spending the effort following and trying to understand changing conventions for very small transgressions of social norms with small consequences, with a brain that doesn't do this naturally the way it does for other people. Having to rely on verbal feedback, (vs nuanced body language and facial expression) means for every little thing I have to wonder if someone like you is on top of social conventions or is just expressing an individual point of view. I have no idea. Just using this as a micro-example, "mate" is much more descriptive and precise in describing what I would have liked to have found in my youth, than "significant other" or "girlfriend" would be. Indeed what I used to want was a monogamous life partner to have children with. I'm sure it was commonly used without negative connotations in my parents' generation. Now, I can try to learn to "correct" this kind of speech, but I haven't found that to be a productive avenue for self-improvement, because almost everything I spontaneously say has these little tone flaws in it, and socialization is _already_ an exercise in pre-screening everything I'm about to say and avoiding acting in the moment. (Aside from that, I also think denial of our animal nature and sexual dimorphism is a trendy college liberal 2017 thing, and will, too, fall out of fashion. "Gender is purely a social construct" is exactly as wacky an idea as flat-earthism.)
- gt_ 9y ago
  This bit was new to me as well. If you feel like taking this advice, maybe it can help. Otherwise, I would hope you just be yourself instead. :)
have_faith 9y ago
I've noticed that people on the spectrum often engage in self deprecating humour as a social coping mechanism. It's just dead pan dry humour.

3 : one of a pair: such as a : either member of a couple and especially a married couple b : either member of a breeding pair of animals c : either of two matched objects Seriously, what's wrong with that?

travisjungroth 9y ago
The phrase “attract a mate” is used more for animals than people. When you use it to talk about yourself, it has a tone of referring to the person you’re looking for like an animal. (Same for “breed” and “female”). If you said “find a partner”, “find a match”, “attract a partner”, “get a boyfriend/girlfriend”, it wouldn’t have the same meaning and would be less off-putting.
- lurr 9y ago
  I don't think saying "find a mate" on hacker news is the problem. Why nitpick trivial things like this on someone you have never met?
  - wand3r 9y ago
    Not op. I think they were attempting to help by socializing them to common parlance. Potentially because IRL they mentioned they dont have a sognificant other it could be because of things like this. Dont know, not op. Think it was meant to be helpful
    - Will_Parker 9y ago
      I have had girlfriends and significant others. What I really wanted to find was a mate. I.e. a pair bond for life with whom I could be myself, and not a social actor.
  - travisjungroth 9y ago
    Only because he asked: > Seriously, what's wrong with that? Maybe he was being rhetorical, but I didn't read it that way.
ABCLAW 9y ago
Mate, like 'female', provides a hint of depersonalization - it indicates that the person you're seeking is sought after to fill a procreative role. This is also the reason for the de-emphasis on Mrs. in professional settings. "Significant Other" and other terms are more readily accepted.
- Will_Parker 9y ago
  > it indicates that the person you're seeking is sought after to fill a procreative role. Indeed, if you've been following the last billion years or so, a procreative role is a common reason why males and females seek each other out. I admit I don't understand why openly seeking to reproduce is to be frowned on. (And a larger point is that people on the spectrum don't take very well to social conventions that are based on tide and fashion instead of reason and logic and clear communication. I decided long ago I'd rather be a lonely tiger than a really terrible pack wolf.)
  - ABCLAW 9y ago
    Openly seeking to reproduce is not frowned upon. Plenty of people get married, have kids, and are fairly straightforward about their intentions regarding family. No one has an issue with this. This is a private issue, to be discussed with your partner. However, publicly seeking someone to be nothing but a baby-factory for you is frowned upon for most people in public, because people like being valued for more than their sexual organs. Hence when you refer to people as 'female' or as a 'mate' in certain contexts, there's a hint of a creep. Calling the new VP a 'hot piece of ass' is censurable for the same reason: because it minimizes her value as a person, professional and team member, regardless of how accurate the assessment regarding how nice her butt is. Trying to frame this as a 'fashion' vs 'logic' trade-off is nonsensical.
    - Will_Parker 9y ago
      > Trying to frame this as a 'fashion' vs 'logic' trade-off is nonsensical. It's a tradeoff in spending the effort following and trying to understand changing conventions for very small transgressions of social norms with small consequences, with a brain that doesn't do this naturally the way it does for other people. Having to rely on verbal feedback, (vs nuanced body language and facial expression) means for every little thing I have to wonder if someone like you is on top of social conventions or is just expressing an individual point of view. I have no idea. Just using this as a micro-example, "mate" is much more descriptive and precise in describing what I would have liked to have found in my youth, than "significant other" or "girlfriend" would be. Indeed what I used to want was a monogamous life partner to have children with. I'm sure it was commonly used without negative connotations in my parents' generation. Now, I can try to learn to "correct" this kind of speech, but I haven't found that to be a productive avenue for self-improvement, because almost everything I spontaneously say has these little tone flaws in it, and socialization is _already_ an exercise in pre-screening everything I'm about to say and avoiding acting in the moment. (Aside from that, I also think denial of our animal nature and sexual dimorphism is a trendy college liberal 2017 thing, and will, too, fall out of fashion. "Gender is purely a social construct" is exactly as wacky an idea as flat-earthism.)
gt_ 9y ago
This bit was new to me as well. If you feel like taking this advice, maybe it can help. Otherwise, I would hope you just be yourself instead. :)

have_faith 9y ago

I've noticed that people on the spectrum often engage in self deprecating humour as a social coping mechanism. It's just dead pan dry humour.