Not feeling (romantically) - is that an AS thing?

Post Reply New Topic

Weakly if at all, so, why it was even brought up in the first place in this thread is what I don't get.




Then clarify further I suppose. I'm not going to invent a new questionnaire here right now




OK then you didn't word that too clearly originally. Anyway, so this is what you meant, you can't bond with sex because of separating these two aspects in that specific way you described. I'd never have guessed this from what you said before, sorry




So you have like, some really abstract type of sexual attraction and desire? You are not really "present" when having sexual intercourse with your partner, just on that spiritual level?

Btw asexuality doesn't mean finding sex disgusting: "Asexuals also differ in their feelings toward performing sex acts: some are indifferent and may have sex for the benefit of a romantic partner; others are more strongly averse to the idea".




Well the similarity you have to demisexuality is that your sexual desire is determined and controlled by intimate feelings and hardly by anything else.

But you do have something else going on with that version of sexuality that's abstract spiritual and is seemingly wholly incompatible with the physical side of sexuality.

It makes me think of aspects of the madonna-whore complex (see wikipedia for it), except you lack much of the desire for the "whore" side which is what makes you seem asexual in a sense, though you are not actually asexual as per the general definition of it. Also, you definitely have no problem with desiring your partner on that spiritual level, so that part of it also is off.

So that complex does not fit you either as it is defined, but why I even thought of it is because it has a similar issue with degrading the physical side as negative and seeing the spiritual side as important. Along with, of course, the "split between the affectionate and the sexual currents" (quoting from the wikipedia article).

Interesting but I can't think of anything else related to this now.




No, pretty sure we aren't similar because I couldn't be further from demisexuality or even asexuality and the like - and I have no idea what kind of experiences you are talking about.

Let me add this.

For you maybe. Many people dislike one-night stands simply because it doesn't feel emotionally fulfilling - they'd like to bond while having sex but one-night stands fly in the face of the - started - bonding process because after the intercourse you are to part with the other. They don't find sex disgusting otherwise.

Certainly, and there probably are people that enjoy it because of the bonding function (gets more pleasurable), but then don't want it to go any further. Then there are the hypersexual people that does not find sexual intercourse disgusting, and they would enjoy this a lot because they get the sex part with no strings attached. For them, that's a lot better than porn.

As for demisexual, there are a few interesting things there, like not wanting sex until a deeper bond has formed that I can identify with. Still, I'm hypersexual, so not at all on the asexuality spectrum if asexuality is a lack of sexual attraction. It's just that I also find sexual intercourse disgusting, and therefore do not like the idea of one-night-stands. I also don't bond with sex in any form, and I cannot have regular sex with somebody without getting bored unless it is not based on sexual attraction.

I don't think there is a "label" that fits me.

But, really, I think we need to reason based on the specific traits, and not ready-made "orientations". Just like in the case of neurodiversity, we are talking about spectrums, and not fixed phenotypes here.

We could use this trait list (dimensions) instead of the ready-made labels:
1. Likes or dislikes sexual intercourse
2. Bonds with sex or not
3. Bonds with obsessive thoughts or not
4. Can or cannot have regular sex based on sexual attraction without getting bored
5. Homosexual, bisexual and hetereosexual
6. Has or lacks sexual attraction
7. Low or high sex drive

The first four traits are related to neurodiversity, while the last three are not.

Okay. Btw, I don't know what you call hypersexual but that's not exactly needed for someone to be comfortable with one-night stands.




A demisexual isn't asexual so that part is okay for you.




I don't know what you mean by "orientation". I'm mostly interested in psychological mechanisms behind traits.




Nice list. How do these tie up into a concept?

Also, I don't understand the relevance of the neurodiversity concept here, why are you always bringing it up with regard to this topic? I'm curious since I'm not very well-versed in these topics yet.

The concept would be the neurotypical and neurodiverse relationship phenotype. Although the phenotypes might still exist in some people (especially the neurotypical), the traits can also exist in any combination, so cannot be summarized into a single concept.

The neurotypical relationship phenotype:
1. Dating
2. Bonding with regular sexual intercourse
3. A focus on appearance
4. Trait matching
5. Friends turn into partners
6. Partners as social trophies.

The neurodiverse relationship phenotype:
1. Stronger than normal attachments
2. Bonding with obsessive thoughts
3. Unusual sexual preferences (paraphilias)
4. Spiritual connection and sex
5. Being more sexually attracted to strangers
6. Developing romantic feelings for people that show persistent interest

The first item on the original list (disliking sexual intercourse in the absence of reproducing) can be viewed as the ancestral state because almost no other animal except for neurotypical humans will have sex in the absence of mating periods and signs of estrus. They are clearly the outliers there. Item four on the original list is caused by being more sexually attracted to strangers, which serves to turn off sexual attraction to friends and partners.

I think that the key "concept" difference between these phenotypes is about reproduction. In the neurotypical phenotype, reproduction cannot be controlled in the absence of modern contraceptives, so these couples really cannot decide when to reproduce. In the neurodiverse phenotype, most of the traits facilitate planned reproduction. That's why sexual intercourse is disliked, and that's why neurodiverse phenotype has a different bonding mechanism that is not based on regular sex. It's also why spiritual sex is the only thing that won't get boring when done repeatedly. There are also traits in the courtship that aims at avoiding sexual intercourse (basically all paraphilias are other ways to have sex without intercourse), which leads up to the dislike for one-night-stands. We even have vaginismus in females that probably is linked to the neurodiverse phenotype, which actually is a physiological avoidance mechanism for sexual intercourse.

By using these traits, we no longer need to extend asexuality beyond its original definition, and asexuality no longer would be more common in autism. Although, I still think we should distinguish between lack of sexual attraction and lack of sex drive, as these are not the same things.

Interesting lists though neither applies to me very well. I'd be totally neurotypical in terms of the physical side, but I like the idea of spiritual connection, and the idea of stronger than normal attachment too. I'd not want a partner as social trophy and it wouldn't be enough to have the focus just on appearance. The physical side of your neurodiverse list though, I'm totally "ew, no" about those items (sorry). Also the last item is weird to me, persistent interest from someone isn't enough for that for me.

Also I wouldn't want to involve evolution theory in this superficial way. That doesn't really explain anything here and is a very contrived attempt at doing so. Sorry.

You appear to be one of those people that are mixed phenotypes, which is not uncommon. I'm mostly with the neurodiverse phenotype.

Regarding persistent interest, this might be something that some people have not experienced, yet they still might like that. For instance, in my two early love interests, there were no quick crush rather it was persistent interest that made me fall in love. In another situation, I had an almost immediate crush, and then my persistent interest in her because of the crush made it mutual (thus she was triggered by persistent interest).

Also, the reason for these lists, and how they are grouped, is that this is the traits that factor analysis will cluster.



I'd disagree to that. I think the only plausible reason for the neurodiverse phenotype, and why it has been broken up into a spectrum, is that it has evolutionary relevance and that it represents the relationship phenotype of Neanderthal. I don't know how else we could explain these linkages and the existence of two widely different relationship characteristics in humans.

It's a bit more complex than that. By default I'm simply neurotypical. But then I can go over to this side that's less conventional. I don't think I'm 100% NT in this sense then, but I'm not sure what it is exactly that's different (I shouldn't be on this forum too much tbh because I've already determined that I'm not AS.)




I'm not sure what you mean by persistent interest here. I do think I have that when I'm interested in someone but maybe for you it's differently experienced.

And, if someone else has it towards me, well that on its own isn't enough obviously, but it's necessary or how else would the connection be lasting? (Beyond conventionality here, yes.)




Factor analysis?! Show me if you actually have that.




I highly doubt you are a scientist who's spent many years heavily researching these topics and even if you were, you would hardly know the final answers, so I suggest you don't make such bold claims here.

I'm not saying there isn't an evolutionary reason for anything at all but I'm specifically referring to the ideas you described here and earlier. They are speculative, not sufficiently confirmed, and there are many other ways to explain the phenomenon.

For example, it can just be a side effect of some other, evolutionarily useful trait. Etc.

Actually, if you also can identify with persistent interest, it seems like you have all the neurodiverse traits, possibly excluding unusual sexual preferences. It also appears you cannot really identify with any of the NT traits, except liking sexual intercourse then. That makes you mostly neurodiverse in the relationship area.

Also, note that the relationship traits are NOT part of AS diagnosis at all. They are only linked because they exist on the neurodiverse spectrum.



From your description above, it appears you have this trait. Compare it with how dating works. Dating is not based on persistent interest, and if you have a persistent interest in somebody, and then date them, it will typically go all wrong and end with unrequited love. In the situation I described, with having a crush on a girl that didn't have a crush on me, and that was out-of-my-league look wise, if I had asked her for a date, it would have gone all wrong and ended with unrequited love.



It's not yet published, but it is in my pipeline. I surely can send it to you in private if you like to study it.



Well, I think I am.

References:
Ekblad L (2013). Autism, Personality, and Human Diversity: Defining Neurodiversity in an iterative process using Aspie Quiz. SAGE Open 3(3): 2158244013497722. (link: http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10. ... 4013497722)

Research gate:
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Leif_Ekblad

Other links:
Aspie Quiz: http://www.rdos.net/eng/Aspie-quiz.php
Aspie Quiz evaluation: http://www.rdos.net/eng/aspeval/
Neanderthal Theory: http://www.rdos.net/eng/asperger.htm



The human courtship article on research gate does go into the evolutionary perspective. Unfortunately, no scientific journal dared to publish it, even if peer-reviewers couldn't find any errors in the argument.

Why shouldn't you be on this forum, Itsme82? It's not just for people with autism. It's for people who seek to advocate for autism.

You do have some autistic traits, anyway---so why not run with that?

Note I said I'm not sure we mean the same thing by persistent interest. So describe your concept of that for me.

And, for the rest, I will have to disagree. Where on earth did I say that I don't identify with any of the NT list, or that I have all the ND ones? I only said I like the sound of some of the ideas there and discussed the topic of whatever you may have meant by persistent interest. I actually said that that item on the list is weird to me. So that's quite a big jump in logic to assume that I must have it in the way you defined, let alone having all the rest of the ND list.

To be entirely clear, here's what I relate to and what I don't relate to. Bolded I relate to, strikethrough ones I don't. Italic half applies. Comments added.

The neurotypical relationship phenotype:
1. Dating ---> What else would it be?
2. Bonding with regular sexual intercourse ---> Bonding only in a more um, physical sense. But I do need and want sex in a relationship. It absolutely doesn't work without sex.
3. A focus on appearance
4. Trait matching ---> Does this mean, dating in your league? If not, let me know because that's what I assumed.
5. Friends turn into partners ---> Possible. Though not a definite preference.
6̶.̶ ̶P̶a̶r̶t̶n̶e̶r̶s̶ ̶a̶s̶ ̶s̶o̶c̶i̶a̶l̶ ̶t̶r̶o̶p̶h̶i̶e̶s̶.̶

The neurodiverse relationship phenotype:
1. Stronger than normal attachments ---> I have not had that. But I like the idea.
2̶.̶ ̶B̶o̶n̶d̶i̶n̶g̶ ̶w̶i̶t̶h̶ ̶o̶b̶s̶e̶s̶s̶i̶v̶e̶ ̶t̶h̶o̶u̶g̶h̶t̶s̶
3̶.̶ ̶U̶n̶u̶s̶u̶a̶l̶ ̶s̶e̶x̶u̶a̶l̶ ̶p̶r̶e̶f̶e̶r̶e̶n̶c̶e̶s̶ ̶(̶p̶a̶r̶a̶p̶h̶i̶l̶i̶a̶s̶)̶
4. Spiritual connection and sex ---> I have not had that. But I like the idea of a spiritual connection.
5̶.̶ ̶B̶e̶i̶n̶g̶ ̶m̶o̶r̶e̶ ̶s̶e̶x̶u̶a̶l̶l̶y̶ ̶a̶t̶t̶r̶a̶c̶t̶e̶d̶ ̶t̶o̶ ̶s̶t̶r̶a̶n̶g̶e̶r̶s̶
6̶.̶ ̶D̶e̶v̶e̶l̶o̶p̶i̶n̶g̶ ̶r̶o̶m̶a̶n̶t̶i̶c̶ ̶f̶e̶e̶l̶i̶n̶g̶s̶ ̶f̶o̶r̶ ̶p̶e̶o̶p̶l̶e̶ ̶t̶h̶a̶t̶ ̶s̶h̶o̶w̶ ̶p̶e̶r̶s̶i̶s̶t̶e̶n̶t̶ ̶i̶n̶t̶e̶r̶e̶s̶t̶ ---> Not enough, no. Though it's a good thing if someone shows interest consistently, of course. But, I decide based on whether I'm interested enough in the person.




Yeah, I get that.




No. I did not describe anything. I just said some kind of persistent (that is, consistent, in my mind) interest is necessary and that I don't know if you mean the same kind of thing by it.

So what is your idea of persistent interest then?




I never had unrequited love or love otherwise. I'm not the type that will do unrequited love, that's just nonsensical to me - my own personal view on this, that is, it doesn't work for me.

Dating is all the flirty getting to know each other process yeah? That's either exclusive or not exclusive yet. I'm fine with that.




I see, so you actually tried to calculate that. I wasn't quite sure if you meant that.




Did you read the second part of the sentence?




I doubt peer-reviewers didn't find errors if they didn't publish it. But I don't really have time to read that stuff, sorry. My point was that it is just a theory like any other theory. You made too bold claims.

Last edited by itsme82 on 17 Apr 2017, 9:22 am, edited 3 times in total.

I do like some topics on this forum, so that's good. I'm just not all that sure if I fully "belong" here but what you say sounds alright then. "Autistic traits" only apply to me if we interpret them in a very broad sense, losing all specificity, and reading up more on personality psychology related topics and more of the DSM-V as well, I did find other categorizations explaining traits about me much better than anything related to ASD.