It's Really Not an NT or Aspie Thing....

Post Reply New Topic

@JustMe, my comments were about the divorce rate in America, individual religious sects notwithstanding. I think the point you're making isn't necessarily about the length of time spent dating prior to engagement/marriage. Instead, it seems like you're pointing out the impact that commitment can have on the health of the marriage - particularly when both people share and adhere to a common understanding of commitment. If you listen to marriage vows (used in marriage ceremonies in lots of different religions), the vows are actually quite specific that the commitment being made is intended to be entered into soberly, after serious deliberation - because it's supposed to be a lifelong commitment. Clearly, at least half the couples getting married don't make and/or keep the commitment the way most religions intend.

While it may be reasonable to believe that people who are raised in the same religion and have the same understanding of marital commitment can choose a mate in less than three months, I don't think that's a reasonable amount of time for the rest of us (who don't share those circumstances). Would you really be able to make the same type of commitment to a non-Mormon in less than 90 days?

That's...interesting. I'm currently living with my boyfriend right now, who is undiagnosed Asperger's and I myself am NT but definitely not completely put together. We were sexual within two weeks and living together within three months; some talk of possible potential marriage has come up from time to time. We have our issues, of course, but I'm learning a lot about why he acts the way he does, and he's making incredibly wonderful efforts to make sure I know how he feels, even if he's not the best at expressing his emotions. I just find it interesting that because I was willing to move in with him (for the record, he asked me to) so soon, that I would be seen as someone to 'run' from. My parents actually got engaged after dating for less than a month and as of this year they've been together for 32 years, so, I guess what I'm saying is not all girls who are willing to commit so soon are scary. I suppose I just figure that when you meet the right one, you know it. Ya know? Okay perhaps I'm not the best at expressing what I mean, but ah well. Just wanted to put that out there.

You don't say how long you and your bf have been together, but if it's working for you, that's great. It is important to understand that if you and your bf work in the long run (stay together happily and permanently), you'll be in the minority of couples that get together so quickly. I believe that you're happy, and I hope you stay that way - truly, I wish you the best. It's just that most people don't experience that fairy tale ending, and by the time they realize the mistake, there's a few kids involved, arguments, emotional warfare, scorched-earth damage, etc. So, I always advise to err on the side of caution....if the person you're with is really "the one," he/she will still be "the one" next year, right?

Thank you so much for this. I found this really helpful

Oh, but there is a normal. It's an imaginary average of all human traits. Nobody should ever compare themselves to it though, other than for curiosity's sake. Embrace the now and love yourself for your quirks. There is no such thing as evil, only ignorance - or the lack of understanding that not everything can be understood.

I'm on this one relationships forum (non-AS based) that has had all kinds of opinions across the board about this. All agree that it is up to the woman, when she's ready to be sexual with a man in a relationship. IF she's willing to engage in sexual activity early on, it also means that she is compromising her position by giving it away to that individual. Instead of allowing it to be a strength, she has turned it into a weakness. It's a woman's decision when she's ready to be sexual. It's the guy's responsibility to respect and honor her decision.

But yeah, the idea of moving in together, blah blah blah less than a year of dating, understandable. I got engaged after two months of dating this one individual. I married a year after that. Was the worst mistake I ever made. That was back in 1999 (I divorced in 2002, and haven't been engaged or remarried since that time).

I want to preface this with the fact that I am not trying to argue much, I just want to put my thoughts out there. I think you make a lot of wonderful posts, Hope. But here are my thoughts:

My boyfriend has AS and I'm NT. I was naked in his bed three days after we started dating. It wasn't because I have emotional problems. It's because I am an extremely sexual person. He was a sweetheart, I was horny, and we began an aspect of our sexual relationship at that point. We did not have intercourse for almost 3 months only because I was a virgin and held my virginity very close to my heart. If I had not been a virgin, I think we would have had sex a lot sooner, but all of the other sexual acts were around from the beginning. We also unofficially moved in together after maybe 4 months of dating and I was ready to commit to him around then if he had asked me. We'll have been together 5 years in August and are planning on getting married when I graduate from college. If not for financial limitations, we would have been married long ago. (I'd love to just elope, but we have to have a wedding because we're both the first-borns of our family )

I understand that sex and love are intertwined for you, and there is nothing wrong with that. I believe it is the same for myself, and everyone I know who has had sex in love and out of love tells me that it is better while in love. But especially in a culture where women have the tools of birth control and condoms at their disposal, they do not have to be selective in the same way that evolution used to make us act. There is not a good chance of pregnancy or STI when you have protection. The problem with this is education, not sex. I am a nursing student and I can't tell you how much it amazes me to discover what both sexes do not know about the risks and how to protect themselves. Having a one night stand with a condom isn't really that big of a deal, in my opinion. It's not as if you are always protected from STI's when you are in a relationship - your partner could have a disease that did not show up at the time of testing, assume they are clean, and have unprotected sex with you, giving you the disease. Or there could be unknown infidelity or drug use within the course of the relationship. The point is that a relationship and waiting around is not the answer - education is.

I also think the growing divorce rate, in the US at least, is the result of a combination of things:
1. A culture where divorce has become more acceptable. - It used to be that divorce was reserved for extreme circumstances, wherein a partner cheated or physically abused the other. Now "irreconcilable differences" is the common listed reason.
2. A culture that promotes extreme romanticism in the media. - Take a look at movies like "The Notebook" and you'll have an idea of why more people get divorced because they believe they 'deserve better'. Passion is wrongly upheld as the important part of romantic relationships, which means that when the passion begins to fade, the couple wonders what went wrong and question whether they are still in love. Instead of focusing on building up a relationship with a good foundation of friendship, they focus on romantic gestures and gifts. This is especially true of women, as by nature we want such gestures to show commitment.
3. Couples do not problem-solve and compromise effectively. - The reality is that relationships normally take a lot of work, and those that are sweet in person normally have it out behind closed doors because that's the way it is. As someone else stated, people are less willing to work out the problems in these relationships and I partially blame a culture that promotes independence and selfishness. The new generation is the "Myspace culture" and grew up being told they were special without having to prove it because of this idea (that's not totally off base when effectively used) about kids needing positive reinforcement. I actually think self-help books are part of the problem.
4. A culture where women have more power. - I am in no way stating that this is a bad thing in and of itself, but for divorce rate, it makes a lot of sense. Because women are able to work outside the home and have more independence, they inevitably will run across more men in more intimate settings than previously. For example, when women were primarily homemakers, the only man they might come in contact with on a daily basis was their husband. Now, women and men find themselves in social settings constantly. It's difficult for some individuals to deal with the flirting and sexual attraction that inevitably occurs in these interactions, which leads to infidelity in emotional or physical ways.

Courtships are actually much longer than previous times in history, and we are given much more leeway in really getting to know our partner before marriage. It used to be that couples went on dates with a chaperone and asking permission for marriage of the woman's father was standard. Now, there is a lot of freedom to date and get to know your partner on your terms. I think any literature that tries to peg the growing divorce rate at simply short courtships is simplifying a rather complex situation.

@Gigglesqueak - I agree with all of your reasons for why the divorce rate remains at a steady 50% in the U.S. There are many more, but to me, the most significant issue is a lack of understanding of what real commitment is, and a lack of willingness to make a real commitment to another person. Marriage is hard work and requires a focus on compromise rather than on maintaining power in the relationship....that takes a lot more of than romantic love can provide.

However, I disagree with the following:

"But especially in a culture where women have the tools of birth control and condoms at their disposal, they do not have to be selective in the same way that evolution used to make us act. There is not a good chance of pregnancy or STI when you have protection. The problem with this is education, not sex. I am a nursing student and I can't tell you how much it amazes me to discover what both sexes do not know about the risks and how to protect themselves. Having a one night stand with a condom isn't really that big of a deal, in my opinion. It's not as if you are always protected from STI's when you are in a relationship - your partner could have a disease that did not show up at the time of testing, assume they are clean, and have unprotected sex with you, giving you the disease. Or there could be unknown infidelity or drug use within the course of the relationship. The point is that a relationship and waiting around is not the answer - education is."

Condoms don't offer the kind of protection from STIs we've been led to believe they do - particularly when it comes to herpes. Herpes is transmitted from skin to skin contact during sex - condoms only cover penises - which is not enough to prevent transmission of the virus.

What we're talking about here, in addition to safer sex practices, is the law of averages. The more partners you have, the greater the risk of contracting an STI. That's not conjecture or opinion - it's fact. So sleeping with fewer people can lower an individual's risk of contracting an STI. I don't think sex is bad, or people are bad for having sex. On the contrary, I think sex is great. I think it sucks that STIs exist. But the reality is there are diseases out there that can kill you, or rob you of your fertility. And yes, the risk to fertility is definitely greater for women. My opinions and my advice are based on those facts, not on any kind of moral or religious stand against sex.

Abstinence is always going to offer more protection than any barrier or hormonal method. The problem is that it's completely unrealistic to expect humans to be abstinent. I'd prefer to educate the public about their options for protecting themselves when they do not prefer to be abstinent or even limit their partners. While condoms do not cover the scrotum of a man, they do provide very good protection against a broad range of STIs.

Your posts unfortunately remind me of abstinence-only sex education that I was forced to suffer through in high school. Yes, of course it is less risky to not have sex. In the same vein, your risk for getting hurt in a car accident is much lower if you simply do not drive. However, we do not tell people to not drive because that's unrealistic. Instead, we build cars with safety measures and educate the public about how to employ those measures. We can't stop people from having multiple partners, but we can give them tools to decrease their risk of suffering adverse effects.

Look, you seem to be attributing thought processes and/or values to me that I have not expressed. I'm not in favor of abstinence. I think abstinence is unattainable and actually quite ridiculous. I'm not against sex education, either. In fact, the concept of being informed is why I've posted what I have.

As far as my posts reminding you of abstinence-only sex education - since I never advocated for abstinence, that connection is purely about you, @Gigglesqueak - and has nothing to do with me. I'd like to live in a world where sex has no consequences: no STIs, no infertility, no unwanted pregnancies, I'd like women to be able to have children as long as they'd like to, etc. But we live in a world of consequences and risks. It's up to each person to weigh the risks of the behavior they engage in. Pretending that they're not there doesn't make them any less real.

that's very simplistic.

but i can see how people who emerge from an environment (created by family expectations, culture, religion, etc) which places a high importance on the commitment of marriage could be more hesitant to divorce, or even morally opposed to it. staying in a marriage doesn't necessarily indicate that it's a good marriage.

people get married for a variety of reasons (expectation, pregnancy, impulse, convenience, citizenship, social standing, security, love, etc etc) and divorce for a variety of reasons. all the low divorce rate among mormons indicates is that it is frowned upon to divorce if you are mormon.

i certainly don't mean that anyone should take marriage lightly, but i heard once that the most reliable statistic for marriage longevity was the age at which one married. the older you are, the more likely you will stay married. this makes sense to me: the older you are, the more likely you are to know what your priorities are, what you want out of a marriage, whether or not you want children and how you'd like to raise them, who is appropriate for you, what sort of lifestyle you want, how you envision your future, where you want to live, what your financial situation is likely to look like for the rest of your life, and so on.

(by the way, the divorce rate in the US went up around the same time as women's lib)

to add to previous post ..
this is equally simplistic. women achieving more independence simply means they cheat more?

other options: women are more likely to initiate divorce, since they are more likely to be financially independent; their partners are more likely to feel threatened by the possibility of other romantic options (since, as stated above, they come in contact with other men); they are more likely to prioritize career over family life (which they may or may not have recognized prior to marriage); they are less likely to care what's expected of them, since becoming aware that following other people's expectations doesn't always equal happiness; and so on.

generalizing about something like that is indicative of a personal bias, IMO. no two people (or two marriages) are the same.

"Unfortunately, I think Aspie men are actually at quite a disadvantage getting involved with NT women who are dysfunctional. When you don't know how partners are supposed to treat each other in a healthy relationship, and you're relying on a dysfunctional woman to guide you - it's just a recipe for disaster. It leaves you incredibly vulnerable to manipulation. Not only will you suffer in the relationship, but when it fails, you'll walk away thinking a) the relationship was "normal"; b) the problem is/was your Aspie traits. "


I may be new on here, but it seems to me that sitting in judgement of others ; only defines the characterof the person judging as a person that needs to judge, nothing more. Albeit open for discussion in a forum, it doesnt mean anyones particular reply is or will be a correct judgement to make . Especially when you really dont have any further information then a post. Book smart does not always mean you can be life smart.

Reading one post from someone may give you a glimps into their life at their own request, but I dont see how this gives anyone the right to pass judgemnet so quickly.

I like many, had a horribly experiences of childhood, does this make me dysfunctional, not NT normal...at times maybe, have I had councilling, sure, am I intelligant, yes, does this give me the right to pass judgemet on others.. NO, not in my opinion, as no two situations are alike , no two ppl, no two opinions even at times.

So maybe there is dysfuntion, but when faced with a relationship that is not defined as normal with either partner, then what is one to do..just reside to not being in a relationship... dumping the spouse with AS tendacies that is making their partner nuts??
or is is actually healthier to try and find a solution, maybe seek some support.

I dont know about throwing all these eggs in one basket and passing judgement..who isnt dysfuntional afterall...isnt that really NT anyhow??

@catsmeow41, what are you talking about? Since when is forming an opinion, a.k.a., making a judgment, a bad thing? And where did you get the idea that what I've written here is based solely on other people's posts or "book smarts?" Do you think somehow that I haven't lived my life, made my share of mistakes, and learned from them? Because that's the basis for this post - and yes, actually - I stand by it. (And no, sorry, the line between dysfunctional and functional has nothing to do with being Aspie or NT.)

Frankly, what you've done is formed an opinion of me and what I've written based on incorrect assumptions you've made about me, my experience, and my character - and you've been ugly about it. I'm so glad I wasted my time giving you advice earlier.

I seen your post a few minutes after my post & felt you were passing judgment on my post, as mine was AS/NT needs advise, and your was " its not about NT/AS" I felt it was a direct judgment, I was wrong, my apologies. I do not agree with some of your statements in this post, and found your analogy of ppl with baggage or rough childhoods as a unfair cast of a net filled with judgement. I believe you have to take each person and treat them for who they are, not the statistics, albeit accurate .

There is nothing worng with offering advice, thats what we are all here for, but if should always be done with caution as the other half of the story has not been heard, and without enough knowledge of that persons personal experience, a too hrash judgement could be taken the worng way. I think diplomatic non judgemental replies are what is appreciated the most. Of coarse that is just my opinion, not a judgement.

@catsmeow41, this post was written in December of last year - it has nothing to do with the post you made today. As to your comment, "I think diplomatic non judgemental replies are what is appreciated the most. Of coarse that is just my opinion, not a judgement." - an opinion is a judgment. So I don't know what value anyone would find in a response that didn't offer an opinion. Frankly, the only response to a complete stranger who took the time to consider and respond to your post (more than once) is a polite "thank you" - not unsolicited advice about how I could have offered my opinion in a way that would have been more to your liking.