Two "kinds" of love

Post Reply New Topic

This is what I was pointing out in my earlier post. Only instead of "playing by a lake, catching fireflies, and building forts", we were looking at the ocean waves, sharing crazy mixed drinks, and dancing salsa into late night. Come to think of it, it sounds very much like childhood friendships, only with a romantic component added in. Perhaps this is my mind playing catch-up with the high school love I never had.

By contrast, traditional (second type) love is actually a cutthroat social competition in a romantic mask. You always have to worry about your partner losing interest or cheating on you. As a result, you have to be strong and attractive at all times, with no margin of error. There is no magic. No exploration. No fun. Even the "honeymoon stage" is just a calm before the storm that lies ahead. It has little in common with the carefree (first type) love, where you have nothing to worry about but exploring the unexplored.

I read somewhere that guys who did not experience romance at a young age (read: did not have a girlfriend in high school) often have difficulties falling in love. (The site did not say whether or not the same was true for girls.) The reason is both psychological and chemical. On one hand, without a romantic experience to learn from, a person never learns what love/romance is supposed to feel like, and therefore actually doesn't know how to fall in love. On the other hand, something about romance at a young age alters the brain, presumably by flooding it with very high levels of oxytocin that cause permanent chemical changes. I've experienced those "oxytocin floods" as an adult, but they had only a temporary effect. I guess without those changes at a young age, falling in love becomes physically impossible.

Yes, that's exactly what it's like. Not only did I not have high school love, I didn't really have childhood friendships either. This was by choice, I preferred being alone, but now I find that as I start to reach out to people, I want to have those kind of friendships, but most adults have even moved on from that in terms of pure friendship. The ones I meet who still seek such playful friendships are rarely looking to date, because they're either not interested or taken, though perhaps I haven't found the right ones.



You're sure that isn't just when people get into it for the wrong reasons (especially social pressure/expectations)? I have known happy families where the parents seemed to truly enjoy sharing life together, and weren't perpetually unsatisfied like you describe. My own family was one, and I've seen more. I do agree that in certain places--Hollywood is a good example--unhappy relationships where the people pretend to be happy are the norm.



You're sure it's not because of the brain differences that are causing your AS? In my case, I have a type of AS with some traits that lean almost toward bipolar, and I believe this plays a role in why I am drawn toward "pure forms" of things, and why I have trouble maintaining any state of feeling for long periods of time. By "pure forms", I mean things like the ultimate beauty, ultimate understanding of nature, "magic", etc., as opposed to non-ideal but possibly more sustainable things.

I suppose I was luckier than a lot of aspies. I did get to experience childhood friendships. The kind where you walk around the neighborhood (a traditional grid, not a subdivision) or a city park, and play pretend together, like you're exploring a mysterious country. I also go to experience young adult friendships, which consist of "hanging out", going to parties, talking about girls, and playing sports. What I did not get to experience is preteen and teenage friendships, and to this day, I have absolutely no idea what exactly you're supposed to do with friends at that age. I think it's Facebook, smartphones, street sports, and bullying their aspie peers, but it's just speculation on my part.

And that's what I try to find in my relationships. That magic of exploring together, like my example with the cruise girl. It was exactly that childhood magic exploration, except there was no pretending involved; it was a new ship for both of us, still to be explored. (The ship, and each other .) You simply can't find that in the second type of love. Simply because you're too focused on to things: keeping yourself in the best light possible so your partner doesn't stop liking you, and worrying about day-to-day matters. The so-called honeymoon phase is nothing like the first type of love. It's simply a side effect of a boosted self-esteem from having a new person interested in you, due to the dopamine being released in the process. Alpha males and beautiful women, who have people interested in them all the time, probably don't experience the honeymoon phase at all.

I don't think it's the AS-related brain differences. I had two almost-girlfriends at age 18, the only girls who ever showed real interest in me, all the way up until age 23. One lost interest instantly when I told her I didn't have a car, and another didn't want to dance close with me when I took her dancing. (Although ironically, when I to go Latin clubs now at age 31, I've had strange women press against me chest-to-chest during dances.) As a result, my brain was never exposed to high levels of oxytocin at a young age, which completely destroyed my ability to fall in love. If at least one of those two girls actually dated me for real, I'm pretty sure I'd have a much easier time falling in love in general.

If you wanted to find that kind of relationship as an adult, how would you do it? In other words, are there adults who still like to play pretend games like this? I guess I do know of some--I've been in a group for about a year now that does things like Nerf gun fights in parks where some people pretend to be zombies, and I know of another that does battles in city squares. What seems to be missing from these groups though are two things--singles (particularly single *women*), and the wide-eyed curiosity aspect (which is where the "romance" is, IMO) of those childlike friendships. The first is self-explanatory--I don't think I have met one woman in that group who was there by herself, as opposed to with one of the guys.

The second takes some explanation. What I mean is, when kids discover things, they think they are discovering something "big", and there is that philosophizing aspect to it. There is that feeling of analyzing/finding joy in things that most of the adults around don't care about, and the feeling that anything is possible. Most adults seem to need something fancy to get into that mode--like your example of a cruise, or possibly a real wild party. I'm definitely a country/small town boy at heart in that I don't need or want a crowd and find building a world of beauty and magic in a quiet park with someone much more preferable to travel or cosmopolitan, city settings.

I don't know how much of me retaining this sense of curiosity about everything has to do with me being into science, and how much of it is the fact of not having experienced those moments of shared wonder as a child (though I DID experience them in solitude), so I yearn for them as an adult. And playing nerf gun fights or strategy games unfortunately doesn't provide an answer to this, as these are activities with rules and do not lend themselves to finding wonder in the rest of the world, if you understand what I mean. The closest I've found, really, are "stoners"--many of them seem to retain this wonder as an adult. I don't know if it's that quality that leads to an appreciation of weed, or vice versa, but I've noticed the connection. Unfortunately, I've never had stoner girls interested in me, even when I used to smoke with them. Well, with one possible exception. This girl in the drug policy group at my university I think was into me at one point, but when I took too long to respond to the hint she moved on. And I doubt it would have worked anyway, as she was much less imaginative than me and more focused on things like silly popular websites (and wasn't the typical stoner type I was referring to above).



I think I was lucky here in that I went to an academically very rigorous high school. So I had my math-geek friends, and in fact I had quite some girls show interest in me--at least as friends and some I suspect romantically. Being new to friendship, I wasn't in a hurry to date, and then I came down with an illness that basically stopped my social development.



I'm just pointing out you don't know for sure. I notice that quite a few people who never had relationships in their teenage years get to their 20s and already are ready to marry. It's like they were able to skip that whole adolescent stage and not miss it somehow.

I know it is possible to meet single, adult, women in a similar way, but I don't think it is though seeking gun fights or playing games in parks. The former is not something women in general enjoy, and the latter is thought of as childish. You need to do it in a different way.

Me too. Happens frequently now as I've gotten really good at dancing, but this has no romantic effect on me. It's enjoyable, but it's just something people do and nothing else. I wouldn't want to do this with a girl I had a serious romantic interest for.



Seems highly implausible. I had no real date in my teens, only some looking and observation at a distance. I surely had a crush on several girls in my teens, but I didn't want to talk to them much less date them. I fall in love quite easily under the right circumstances.

But do you also fall out of love easily? I don't think I have a problem "falling in love" in the sense of developing obsessions about girls. But it's the combination of novelty and lack of reciprocation that, I think, keeps it going. If I were to actually get in a relationship with any of these girls, I don't know if it would last.

And in any case, I'm prone to a more "manic" sort of romantic energy, not a "settled" kind. In other words, my need for "belonging" is not tied to my romantic attraction, it's my sense of discovery that's most closely connected to attraction for me. Even though I develop strong attachments to familiar places, for instance, it's nothing like what I feel toward romantic interests, which is kind of like the feeling of first becoming introduced to a new special interest.

Along with that, I sometimes feel (in part because others have pointed this out to me) that I likely fall "in love" with the idea of a person more often than an actual person.

A mix of both types seems the best for me.

No, I also develop obsessions about girls I fall in love with. These are strongest while I still don't know a lot about them, and vanish if I continue to a relationship. That doesn't mean that the attachment vanishes, but if I don't have the obsessive phase then I get a poor attachment.



Absolutely. Getting an obsession with a girl is like getting a new special interest. Not only that, but it typically becomes the strongest special interest too, which gives you a feeling that you have no energy for anything else.



Same for me. I don't see that much as a problem, more as a consequence of not falling in love with somebodies appearance, status or interests, but their persistent interest for me.

Nature has also given me "timeouts", so if I fall in love with somebody and get into the obsessive stage, then it will vanish in 2 or 3 months if I don't see her anymore or if she starts to ignore me. Those fail miserably if I date her and she dumps me because then I have been led-on too much.

Two kinds of love? Sounds like a marketing trick to sell more romance novels.

I think people need to be careful not to mix-up obsessions about girls with attachment. The role of the obsession is to help building a strong attachment. Once the strong attachment is in place, the obsession has no meaning and so it vanishes. Thus, if you typically start by being obsessed with girls, this doesn't mean that you will lose interest in them as you no longer are obsessed with them, because if they reciprocated then you will have a strong (and probably mutual) attachment. Also, in my experience, if girls lack interest in me, I might still be obsessed with them for a while, but that will only be temporary and it will not build any lasting attachment. Thus, these things do work naturally and shouldn't be viewed as problems.

If we factor-in the inability to analyze romantic interest in real time (which probably serves to avoid approach behavior), and the inability to approach girls you are obsessed about (which serves the same purpose), then it follows that in any natural environment you will never end up in a typical dating situation that ends with a painful rejection.

for me it doesn't I still love the women I got simi close to after not seeing or talking to them for months. which is why I don't want to date just anyone. I should probably be more picky than I am to avoid falling for the wrong women and being stuck with caring for them while they move on.

I would need a balancing though. I focus on spending so much time with them. i lose out on my hobbies. but I don't want to seem like I am not interested in spending time with them plus not sure what is normal. all the stories from women upset at aspie guys scares me. of course then I risk comming off as clingy. but there doesn't seem to be much of an inbetween of clingy and distant. at least not one I can see from reading stuff online

I don't see sex as a fun, playful activity to be shared with a partner. When I was a child and exploring sexuality, I approached it that way (as a game). However, I didn't know that what I was doing had anything to do with sex or sexuality. I didn't know what sex was.

Once I got older, I lost that ability to be playful when it comes to sex. I've learned never to allow myself to be vulnerable by showing my true self to anyone--especially women I am attracted to. I don't think your approach to sex is possible without the willingness to allow yourself to be vulnerable around another person.

I take it one step further, and see sex as a third kind of "love" in a way. It's separate from the first kind (carefree exploration of the magic of the world) and the second kind (deep sharing and commitment). Sex is something you do when you're horny and feel attraction toward someone. (For men, attraction is even optional at times, while it's always mandatory for women.) Sex is not about love. However, the American society, due to its Puritan roots in the Massachusetts Bay Colony, seems to tie the two together.

In the first kind of love especially, sex doesn't even need to in the equation. The magic of exploration is enough. In fact, I feel like it takes away from the shared magic at times; namely, by creating a sense of obligation that's best not to be there, unless it's mutually agreed that sex is for entertainment/attraction, and not for a possible relationship. That said, other sexual behaviors, such as French kissing, blatantly erotic dancing, or low-level fooling around are a must, to differentiate this kind of love from banal friendship.

In the second kind of love, sex quickly loses it's meaning of expression of "love", and becomes a weapon and a form of currency, that is, something a man has to work for. This is why I always feared having sex with my past girlfriends. Of course, I went through it anyway, because what kind of man would I be if I didn't. But in the back of my mind, I never stopped worrying: Will I be obligated to abandon my freedom, now that she gave me sex? What else will I be obligated to do? Will she start expecting engagement and a $10,000 ring?

I don't see it as two types of love. The best type and the most fulfilling, is being in love with someone you can have fun with and at the same time be emotionally vulnerable and serious. When people get married, they try to marry someone that totally gets them. That means, that the person would be someone that becomes your best friend but a thousand times better. That kind of love is so hard to find, but the most rewarding.

The second type of love that was mentioned, is only a portion of what a real commited relationship should be like. Being truly in love with someone, means that you enjoy being with that person, have similar interests, can have fun with that person, and be able talk to that person about anything.

With marriage that person becomes your family. But to get married, a person must find someone they can tolerate. To stay married, a person must find someone they love to be with because that person makes their life better in every way.

True. Also, being more sexually attracted to strangers than to people you know well (like a partner), is not uncommon, and it is linked to neurodiversity. People that can identify with that preference are not likely think sex and love are the same thing, or even remotely similar.



I don't think it is a must. For me, the difference between a friendship and a relationship is obvious already from the start because I never flirt with friends.



So true. I can totally relate to that. I think that is partially why I decided she needed to take the initiative, because then it would not be a game.