The site where they BASH Aspie husband and wives. :O

Post Reply New Topic

You have to click on the post number on the top right hand corner of the opening post of that particular thread in order to link to it and get the correct address.

People want a relationship with someone they can share their life with so logically they would be concerned about how their partner would fit into the rest of their life with their friends and family or how it will integrate into current and future social structures. Life contains social structure whether we like it or not, so I don't see what the problem with that is.

Marriage isn't just a business contract where two people sign agreeing to both pay for a roof over each others heads and produce and financially take care of offspring. There's more to it than that. Why in the world would you want to be married to someone who makes you feel miserable? Seriously, why?

This is why I'm single. I don't ever want to be trapped with the same person every single day of my life. I don't want someone to be simply loyal to me, I want to enjoy the company of the other person. If I can't do that there's no way in hell I'm going to marry them. Makes me wonder why half the population actually get married. I think they imagine that the other person will change after marriage and they'll have the storybook life society sells them from a young age. Some people just walk into marriage with their eyes closed because it's a milestone they feel they are expected to achieve to be a successful grown up, then they wake up to reality.

No one wants to be with a person who makes them miserable, if that's indeed what is happening. And no one should put up with mistreatment or abuse, or try to stick it out if they find out they are incompatible.

But some people make themselves miserable because they can not be satisfied with anything in their life, and then blame it all on their partner. The woman who is the subject of this thread comes across as that type of person.



Fair enough. But marriage is traditionally a vow to stay together "for better or for worse." It's not a vow to say together "only so long as you fit into the rest of my life." It means saying to someone, "You ARE my life."

If you don't know what it is to feel that way for someone, then no, indeed you shouldn't get married.

The problem I see is that those social structures are imaginary and your partner is real.
I would not think it terms of fitting what is real into the context of something imaginary, but the other way around.




I agree with that. I see marriage as more of a compound than a composite, - more of a bonding than a mixing. The type of contract you speak of would entail expectations of things OUTSIDE of the relationship itself. For instance you would expect your partner to provide more money, rather than expecting them to maintain their place or commitment to the relationship.




I don't think that was ever proposed directly, but how the partner is held responsible for making them miserable was indeed in question. I tried to suggest that the perceived justifications for placing blame are either based on real things or imagined things, - like pressures from those social structures.




It certainly makes sense that you would have no interest in loyalty given that you would be unwilling to provide it. I does sound to me that you have a view of other people as tools to use in order to attain some type of "feel-good". You would allow them to interact as long as they continue to provide an emotional fuel for you, but otherwise they would be discarded.

I think you are correct for staying out of marriage, but I think that a great many problems, like those revealed by that site and in this thread, are caused by people who feel as you do, but enter into the marriage anyway.

It seems to me that they do not enter the relationship with the intent of combining with their partner, but in more of a parasitic capacity.

I wanted to point out that someone could claim emotional abuse at any time over any thing.
If friends convince you that your partner should provide you with X, but they are withholding X from you, then you could claim that they are emotionally abusing you. They could say that you make them miserable because you don't cook for them.
It's just based on an imaginary factor though. Those friends are not part of the relationship and shouldn't be able to exert any pressure in that respect. Each partner should be able to filter out such imaginary pressures, but they don't.

Anything that comes from groupthink changes over time, - evolves.
That characteristic makes it far different in principle than the bond that is the basis of a real (intended permanent) relationship. That is an incompatibility.

The algorithms of the hive-mind do not want permanent relationships, or anything that reduces social interaction. The algorithms favor "separation", which is more in line with temporary, and very conditional, relationships.

An individual inside a very secure relationship is far less worried about things like hierarchies, or satisfying social acceptance ( serving identity ).

Agreed. I think most people only look at relationships in the shortterm and dont look much further beyond the period after they get children. The strong independent woman who does not need a man stereotype also contributed alot to this.

What i see alot in my enviroment is that when 1 of the 2 in a relationship is not really happy, 'false' advice from friends are usually the trigger to end the relationship. It seems alot of NTs really cannot think for themselves and are easely manipulated, most of the time by 'friends' who try to win something out of it too. For me this is also the most confusing part; You have a relationship with someone so you only discuss things with your partner and trust eachother so much in that regard that you let no external factors (friends, family) manipulate you. But over the years, after seeing all of my relationships with NT woman end in disaster for various reasons and seen so many nasty stuff happen around me, i start to believe that NT really have only 3 personality traits : Manipulating, lying and deceiving for their own personal gain to move up the ladder.

Some funny stuff that i see :
-People going into a relationship just for the sake of not being alone anymore
-People going into a relationship even thou they see their partner as a C instead of a A.
-Woman going into a relationship because the biological clock is tick'n. Who cares about longterm vision? I have already met a few woman that has a kid from 3 different daddies.. long live the strong independent woman!
-Divorcing because they still love eachother, but 'ya know.. the financial stress after he lost his job was too taxing.. or they met someone whom they are just as attracted to as their current partner, but has more money to spend. Or they needed to put their boring life on fire.. better start an affair!

I feel alienated from the world and it seems to get worse the older i get. NT behaviour is just illogical and strange. A relationship as written in a textbook should look more like a biological symbiosis. You fulfill eachothers needs and live long and happy together.. But in practise we get parasitic behaviour with people only caring about 'what do i win out of this relationship?'

I am not saying that all people with AS are loyal and dont care about only gaining something in a relationship.. but most of them are, this is why i think people with AS and NT cannot have a succesful relationship in the long term too. For this reason i have been single for 3 years now.. i have been seeing patterns in their (NT) behaviour for a long time now but i never could find the right words for it, for which i am olympiadis truely thankful for doing that for me.

This thread is starting to devolve into the same kind of negativity that goes on at the other forum "bashing" aspies. Bad experiences (usually from past failed relationships) are being projected onto an entire group of diverse people. It's known as carrying emotional baggage.

"If you've met one aspie, you've met one aspie." The same could be said about "NT's" or others who aren't on the spectrum.

NT/AS relationships are not inherently incompatible, IMO. Whatever the combination - two people with AS, two NT's, or NT/AS - a marriage is going to be hard work.

Negativity?

How so?

Seeing patterns in human behaviour and trying to understand neurotypical behaviour is negative now?

My bad experiences may be just bad experiences and learning processes.
In the same sense that i have failed miserable with regular friendships over the years. To be honest, if i did not learn anything from those friendships in the past i pretty much wouldve lost my best and only friend already. Through my past relationships, i have learned my strengths and limitations. In those relationships, i have learned that a true relationship is not my cup of tea simple because it is too much of a combination between complexity, exhausting and me not giving enough attention to the woman because i have always been alone and prefer to function alone. There are no hard feelings or fustration towards woman in general involved from my side. It has become pretty tiresome, and this is not the first forum where i get words like baggage thrown towards my face, to hear the same stuff over and over again. It does not contribute anything to the discussion, it is randomly throwing mud at someone hoping it will hurt them. It is like saying, HAH! you are just fustrated because of your past, therefore your arguments are invalid.

I have spent about 14 years on this planet sofar trying to fit in while 'studying' humans and these are just the patterns that i see on a regular basis. I am eagerly waiting for the day i see the first neurotypical who does not apply to any of the known stereotypes that i have seen so far and doesnt apply to the same 'standard model' as olympiadis has written so well here in this discussion.

But i guess seeing patterns in NT is the same as carrying emotional baggage...

I will reply, @Olympiadis another day, because it's going to take a long time to do so. I saw the other thread (which is one I could no longer post in, as was told it was off-topic), I remember it. When I have enough spare time to read around 20 threads I'll make my own, but I don't know when that will be. I'm not invested enough to construct a thread that takes 30 minutes to read through.

I'll try my best to explain this, though I will be rushing. I don't generally enjoy replying to anything personal as I apparently tend to appear aggressive.



I agree that it could be equated to throwing mud, but as an NT, I feel very much the same when I read your comments, only yours go into extravagant detail. Your arguments are not necessarily invalid, but the way in which they are presented constitutes (in my mind) a rant.

I appreciate that you are perceptive, but the nature of our psychology (can't remember the theory, can research this if you wish) will always attempt to fit things in to a nice, neat box. What you describe (all NTs fitting the theory) is very much the same as a person acting 'more autistic' when learning about autism - you're either consciously, or subconsciously attempting to fit a box.

I don't imagine the theories to be incorrect, but there are many parts I disagree with, having experienced my 'NT' life. If you look at all other forums catering to one specific group of people, you will find that autistics fall into the 'NT' group as far as they are considered.



1. NTs can think for themselves, everybody has their own brain. A reason that it may not seem so is social learning. It is a heavily complex trust network between partner and friends, and a reason why sometimes a person will trust their friends over a partner (for example) is due to 'signs' or 'subtleties' that their partner is unfaithful, or something similar. It really goes both ways. I know many stories where a person has been too 'in love' with their partner to see how horribly they were treating them - friends can help with that. You and many others tend to only see the dark side of this, which is understandable, but from another perspective, 'negative'. When I reply to Olympiadis, I will attempt to explain why I don't think it's fair to label a 'hivemind' as controlling behaviour such as this.

2. This is negative hyperbole, and most obviously not true.



1. For the first comment, people sometimes go into a relationship to end the suffering of being alone. Over time, they are likely to develop stronger feelings for their partner, or disconnect from them. It is very hard to argue around behaviour such as this, because both in the pair would simply want to feel happier. As for the second comment, that's almost definitely going to happen in life. It's incredibly unlikely that you will meet your ideal partner - so that is black and white thinking. Nothing in social terms is so black and white. The third is your ideal lifestyle, that doesn't make it everyone else's.

2. I don't agree with some decisions people make either, but it's not specific to the wiring differences between AS and NT (only two groups are considered for sake of simplicity).



1. This is a common opinion of autistic individuals (at least from what I've read online). There are so many things factoring into NT behaviours that are not naturally understood by those on the spectrum - essentially the core differences in perspective. I relate it to an NT trying to understand why an autistic stims, or has sensory issues. You can read as much as you want, but will never truly 'know'.

2. The problem I have with a statement like this is that it doesn't hold any inherent value, it just seems to be a very general statement, based at best on some life experience. You say 'most of them are', but I have no reason to believe that, as I can't grasp how you would come to that conclusion. As the statement is negative in nature, ('cannot have a successful relatonship'), I can only assume that the foundation was negative emotion.

I apologize if this is worded poorly, I have just finished two university assignments and it was very taxing, so I cannot really be bothered fixing up my post to the point where it is both precise and concise.

That said, what you've posted sounds unfortunate. I hope that some day you will find a partner (whether they be AS or NT) so that you don't have to worry about it.

Norny,

Thank you for your blessings.. but i have made my decision already, altho it was not easy. I just prefer to function alone.

Coming back on the rest of your post, you are free to state your opinion and i will not attack you or defend myself again. These are my observations after going through hundreds if not thousands of social interactions and people that i have seen, but everyone has a different view on it depending on how they were raised by their parents, social enviroments and so many other factors. I stay open to the opinion of others as i continue this quest in understanding humans in general. However, you must understand that due to the things i have seen, i strongly agree with olympiadis. Does that mean i could be wrong? possible, maybe i'll come back to this topic once i turn 50 (23 years from now) and think 'Man, i was such a fool back then'

I definitely understand that you have a unique personal experience, and I am completely fine if you agree with Olympiadis.

I agree with some of what Olympiadis has posted too (not all, obviously), it has mostly been the presumptuous nature of part of it that irks me. I'll give a random example:



Psychopath: 'a person suffering from chronic mental disorder with abnormal or violent social behaviour.'

Using that simple definition, or a link to a description: Link

I find it hard to accept that most people I know are psychopaths under the influence of mind viruses - and not hard in the sense of denial, but complete disbelief. As my family (I included) are all considered to be NT by social definition of this specific community, I can never relate to information such as this (not that it is my only reason for partial disagreement). Unlike your experience, my experience of life defies much of what has been written. Admittedly, I have clearly not educated myself to the extent Olympiadis has concerning this topic of discussion, but as an effective target of the argument (NT), I feel obliged to contribute to the discussion. In a way, it's analogous to the hate autistics display to Autism Speaks (though that organization is seriously screwed up).



I apologize if I made you feel as if it were wrong to defend yourself. You also didn't attack me, but thank you, I suppose. XD

That is a very superficial description that ignores the underlying logical process involved that results in certain behaviors.




I have explained this in other posts and should have in that one as well, but I will say that I think as JBW does that only 2 to 5% of the population may actually be true psychopaths, and a great percentage of the other people (primarily NTs) are either idolizing psychopaths, or just imitating psychopathic behaviors in their quest for more social acceptance. So, I would say no of course most people you know are not psychopaths. The mind virus thing I will stand by though. The majority of people engage in thoughts and behaviors that have driving mechanisms originating externally. In other words they are shared ideas or algorithms. They are instruction sets that are shared from mind to mind and significantly influence our thoughts and actions. These are what I describe as mind viruses. Like real viruses these ideas have certain attributes that protect them, ensure their spread, and ensure that they continue on into the future. Things like this are not random or accidental, but are emergent. One feature of these mind viruses is that they often result in individuals performing psychopathic behaviors. I think JBW does a better job of explaining the key qualities that cause these systems to work.

Also, I have cited the Eichmann/Milgram experiments several times in support of these claims. Ordinary people have proven what they are capable of in laboratory tests, where the particulars of the environment can be thoroughly analyzed. The process observed is mirrored daily all around us.
I think it just may take some time and consideration for this to start sinking in.
If you haven't read up on those old experiments, then please take the time to do so.
They are very interesting and revealing.
I think that doing so will help bring some key issues into focus, and then my posts won't seem so absurd or unsubstantiated.

Thank you!


Here are the links to the ones I mentioned earlier:

where the poster talked about testing the partner, tricking them if necessary:
http://forums.delphiforums.com/aspartne ... sg=13326.1


where the OP claims to reveal a therapist's point of view. Apparently we are demons.
http://forums.delphiforums.com/aspartne ... sg=13350.1

Where bstn3 shows what she's like (again)
http://forums.delphiforums.com/aspartne ... sg=13362.1

Ok, that is a serious problem because social structures are very real. A person has family and a circle of friends whom they like, they may even love these people. They have bonds that have grown over the years and they value these people and the relationships they have with them. If their partner causes problems with these people that they are close to and whom they love then that causes problems throughout their life, not just in the relationship with the partner.

I agree. Seems to be a misappropriation of words like imaginary, psychopath, etc.

Olympiadis claims the value placed on money is imaginary. His example was a country being invaded, thus causing the local currency to lose all value. That doesn't make it imaginary. If it was imaginary then the local currency wouldn't have any value to lose in the first place because it would only exist in the mind as something not real. If I need food or medicine for my family, money can get me those things where I live currently. The value of money is not tangible but it is real and subject to change.

Social structures are not imaginary, either. Our relationships with people are just as real as the people themselves. Just because relationships are not tangible items doesn't mean they exist solely in the imagination. They have very real effects on our lives and the lives of others.

As for an outlandish claim like "NT's are psychopaths," I'm not even going to address that because I think it speaks for itself.

The sad thing I see about that thread is they think we are mimicking them when we learn skills and they won't see it as genuine. But yet if we don't do them, then they are still not happy about us because we are not doing what they want.




Goodness, I wouldn't go to that therapist.