WrongPlanet.net
WP Members: > 80,000



Aspie Affection

New Today: 3
New Yesterday: 15

Lack of affection in a relationship 1, 2, 3  Next  
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Wrong Planet Autism Forum Index -> Love and Dating     
DarkSkies
Tufted Titmouse
Tufted Titmouse


Joined: Mar 04, 2013
Posts: 27

PostPosted: Thu Mar 07, 2013 5:06 am    Post subject: Lack of affection in a relationship Reply with quote

Do people with aspergers have these problems? Not knowing how to respond to a person who loves you and not really showing any physical affection or interest to that person and them eventually giving up on them. It happens everytime, just not into all that love stuff.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
uwmonkdm
Phoenix
Phoenix


Joined: Mar 06, 2013
Age: 24
Posts: 764
Location: Canada

PostPosted: Thu Mar 07, 2013 5:19 am    Post subject: Re: Lack of affection in a relationship Reply with quote

DarkSkies wrote:
Do people with aspergers have these problems? Not knowing how to respond to a person who loves you and not really showing any physical affection or interest to that person and them eventually giving up on them. It happens everytime, just not into all that love stuff.


I feel the affection, I just have a really hard time showing it physically or otherwise.
A main trait of AS is the inability to read non-verbal cues which is a large part of intimacy, especially outside of the bedroom.
It's not easy, sometimes you just need to come right out and say these things - that's usually how I showed affection when I did, other than just physical intimacy.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
DarkSkies
Tufted Titmouse
Tufted Titmouse


Joined: Mar 04, 2013
Posts: 27

PostPosted: Thu Mar 07, 2013 5:26 am    Post subject: Re: Lack of affection in a relationship Reply with quote

uwmonkdm wrote:
DarkSkies wrote:
Do people with aspergers have these problems? Not knowing how to respond to a person who loves you and not really showing any physical affection or interest to that person and them eventually giving up on them. It happens everytime, just not into all that love stuff.


I feel the affection, I just have a really hard time showing it physically or otherwise.
A main trait of AS is the inability to read non-verbal cues which is a large part of intimacy, especially outside of the bedroom.
It's not easy, sometimes you just need to come right out and say these things - that's usually how I showed affection when I did, other than just physical intimacy.


Same, I feel affection towards someone, but have no desire for physical intimacy whatsoever. I think it's the innuendo and flirting that comes with some relationships that I don't pick up on easily. It ends up with them thinking i'm not interested and leaving me. Also the awkwardness.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Cafeaulait
Phoenix
Phoenix


Joined: Jul 22, 2012
Age: 22
Posts: 2174

PostPosted: Thu Mar 07, 2013 6:54 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

No, when I love someone I really feel the need to express my affection. I love hugging my mom, my brother once in a while.
I don't have a boyfriend right now but I am sure that if I do I would show a lot of affection (hugging, kissing, touching). To me it's a way of bonding with someone and I just gives me a happy feeling. Razz And the other person as well, i hope.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
MollyTroubletail
Phoenix
Phoenix


Joined: Oct 22, 2010
Posts: 678

PostPosted: Thu Mar 07, 2013 7:30 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

In any relationship, either both people have their needs met, or they will leave that relationship.

So if you try getting into a relationship knowing that your partner needs physical affection, you're basically setting them up for a fail if you can't give them that.

You'd have to try only finding a partner like yourself, physically unmotivated. That isn't impossible -- I once ended up in a relationship like that by accident! -- but it's fairly rare. A smaller pool of appropriate matches, but they're around. You have heterosexuals, homosexuals, bisexuals, etc. etc. ..... people who don't want physical affection often call themselves: asexual. There are groups of them around the internet.

You could be honest about this "problem" when you first begin getting closer, so that your future partner can make an informed choice instead of you having relationships which constantly fizzle out because your partner feels unloved. That erodes both your partner's and your feelings of self-worth.

But it's actually just a predictable mismatch from the beginning. Like gay men who marry straight women. Shocked
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
uwmonkdm
Phoenix
Phoenix


Joined: Mar 06, 2013
Age: 24
Posts: 764
Location: Canada

PostPosted: Thu Mar 07, 2013 7:45 am    Post subject: Re: Lack of affection in a relationship Reply with quote

DarkSkies wrote:

Same, I feel affection towards someone, but have no desire for physical intimacy whatsoever. I think it's the innuendo and flirting that comes with some relationships that I don't pick up on easily. It ends up with them thinking i'm not interested and leaving me. Also the awkwardness.


Oh, I have the desire for it, I just don't get the innuendos and flirting, so I don't know when it's acceptable or not... makes things a little awkward.
Are you like asexual, or just anxious about it?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
DarkSkies
Tufted Titmouse
Tufted Titmouse


Joined: Mar 04, 2013
Posts: 27

PostPosted: Thu Mar 07, 2013 7:52 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I like being close to guys but thats it. Any kind of intimacy is a no for me. It just doesn't do anything for me at all apart from feelings of disgust. But I had things happen to me when I was younger so that might be the underlying cause. It's hard because when I like someone they seem to always want more in the end then I can give them. I'm not cold hearted but don't show affection to hardly anyone which makes relationships especially difficult.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Thelibrarian
Phoenix
Phoenix


Joined: Aug 06, 2012
Posts: 2089
Location: Deep in the heart of Texas

PostPosted: Thu Mar 07, 2013 11:09 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Dark Skies, I think Molly has provided sage advice; BOTH partners in a relationship have to have their needs met. Generally speaking, men and women have different intimacy needs, as evidence by some of the posts in this thread. For men, intimacy is pretty simple; it is physical and visual. Intimacy for women tends to be more complex. Most women do want some physical intimacy, but women also need a lot more physical intimacy. So, a successful relationship generally means a man meets a woman's need for emotional intimacy and a woman meets a man's need for physical intimacy. If you want the emotional intimacy that comes with a healthy romantic relationship, you must be able to reciprocate by providing him with what he needs as well.

BTW, there is a very plausible evolutionary explanation for this state of affairs. For men, who have millions of sperm they are trying to get rid of, physical intimacy is just a good time. Men can have an almost unlimited number of children, so the costs of physical intimacy are low.

For women, who have a relatively limited number of eggs, the costs of physical intimacy can be very high, i.e., nine months pregnant, six months nursing, and caring for that child for at least eighteen years. This explains why women are usually the ones who put curbs on physical intimacy. It also explains why females value emotional intimacy more than men; they want to be assured the father sticks to help take care of his children. It may be that these otherwise rational female reservations are too strong in you.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
uwmonkdm
Phoenix
Phoenix


Joined: Mar 06, 2013
Age: 24
Posts: 764
Location: Canada

PostPosted: Thu Mar 07, 2013 11:19 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Thelibrarian wrote:
Dark Skies, I think Molly has provided sage advice; BOTH partners in a relationship have to have their needs met. Generally speaking, men and women have different intimacy needs, as evidence by some of the posts in this thread. For men, intimacy is pretty simple; it is physical and visual. Intimacy for women tends to be more complex. Most women do want some physical intimacy, but women also need a lot more physical intimacy. So, a successful relationship generally means a man meets a woman's need for emotional intimacy and a woman meets a man's need for physical intimacy. If you want the emotional intimacy that comes with a healthy romantic relationship, you must be able to reciprocate by providing him with what he needs as well.

That's a really bold claim. Not all men are just "wam bam thank you ma'am"
Second part, lol.

Quote:

BTW, there is a very plausible evolutionary explanation for this state of affairs. For men, who have millions of sperm they are trying to get rid of, physical intimacy is just a good time. Men can have an almost unlimited number of children, so the costs of physical intimacy are low.

We're not just biochemical apes - this reductionist view destroys intimacy.

Quote:

For women, who have a relatively limited number of eggs, the costs of physical intimacy can be very high, i.e., nine months pregnant, six months nursing, and caring for that child for at least eighteen years. This explains why women are usually the ones who put curbs on physical intimacy. It also explains why females value emotional intimacy more than men; they want to be assured the father sticks to help take care of his children. It may be that these otherwise rational female reservations are too strong in you.

Total BS. I know women, and I have dated women who hate "romance" and whatnot. Whereas I love it when my partner does 'romantic' or affectionate things for me that aren't physical.


Last edited by uwmonkdm on Thu Mar 07, 2013 2:05 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Thelibrarian
Phoenix
Phoenix


Joined: Aug 06, 2012
Posts: 2089
Location: Deep in the heart of Texas

PostPosted: Thu Mar 07, 2013 11:28 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

uwmonkdm wrote:
Thelibrarian wrote:
Dark Skies, I think Molly has provided sage advice; BOTH partners in a relationship have to have their needs met. Generally speaking, men and women have different intimacy needs, as evidence by some of the posts in this thread. For men, intimacy is pretty simple; it is physical and visual. Intimacy for women tends to be more complex. Most women do want some physical intimacy, but women also need a lot more physical intimacy. So, a successful relationship generally means a man meets a woman's need for emotional intimacy and a woman meets a man's need for physical intimacy. If you want the emotional intimacy that comes with a healthy romantic relationship, you must be able to reciprocate by providing him with what he needs as well.

That's a really bold claim. Not all men are just "wam bam thank you ma'am"
Second part, lol.



Quote:

BTW, there is a very plausible evolutionary explanation for this state of affairs. For men, who have millions of sperm they are trying to get rid of, physical intimacy is just a good time. Men can have an almost unlimited number of children, so the costs of physical intimacy are low.

We're not just biochemical apes - this reductionist view destroys intimacy.

Quote:

For women, who have a relatively limited number of eggs, the costs of physical intimacy can be very high, i.e., nine months pregnant, six months nursing, and caring for that child for at least eighteen years. This explains why women are usually the ones who put curbs on physical intimacy. It also explains why females value emotional intimacy more than men; they want to be assured the father sticks to help take care of his children. It may be that these otherwise rational female reservations are too strong in you.

Total BS.


That's a really bold claim. Not all men are just "wam bam thank you ma'am"
Second part, lol

Comrade, do you really not know what the phrase "generally speaking" means? If you are telling me that you don't understand basic English, then we can't have an intelligent conversation.

'"Generally speaking, men and women have different intimacy needs, as evidence by some of the posts in this thread."

"We're not just biochemical apes - this reductionist view destroys intimacy."

How so? Or are your positions part of some weird, politically correct religion?

Total BS.[/quote]

Again, how so? Are you capable of intelligent argument?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
uwmonkdm
Phoenix
Phoenix


Joined: Mar 06, 2013
Age: 24
Posts: 764
Location: Canada

PostPosted: Thu Mar 07, 2013 11:39 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Thelibrarian wrote:

That's a really bold claim. Not all men are just "wam bam thank you ma'am"
Second part, lol

Comrade, do you really not know what the phrase "generally speaking" means? If you are telling me that you don't understand basic English, then we can't have an intelligent conversation.

'"Generally speaking, men and women have different intimacy needs, as evidence by some of the posts in this thread."

"We're not just biochemical apes - this reductionist view destroys intimacy."

How so? Or are your positions part of some weird, politically correct religion?

Total BS.

Again, how so? Are you capable of intelligent argument?


"Are you capable of intelligent argument?
-> Use sexist generalizations.
-> Imply I'm an idiot and fundamentalist religious nut

I'm not even going to bother, you've already resorted to name calling just because I've opposed your closed minded views.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Thelibrarian
Phoenix
Phoenix


Joined: Aug 06, 2012
Posts: 2089
Location: Deep in the heart of Texas

PostPosted: Thu Mar 07, 2013 11:50 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

uwmonkdm wrote:
Thelibrarian wrote:

That's a really bold claim. Not all men are just "wam bam thank you ma'am"
Second part, lol

Comrade, do you really not know what the phrase "generally speaking" means? If you are telling me that you don't understand basic English, then we can't have an intelligent conversation.

'"Generally speaking, men and women have different intimacy needs, as evidence by some of the posts in this thread."

"We're not just biochemical apes - this reductionist view destroys intimacy."

How so? Or are your positions part of some weird, politically correct religion?

Total BS.

Again, how so? Are you capable of intelligent argument?


"Are you capable of intelligent argument?
-> Use sexist generalizations.
-> Imply I'm an idiot and fundamentalist religious nut

I'm not even going to bother, you've already resorted to name calling just because I've opposed your closed minded views.


It's not my fault if you don't know why you believe the things you do. I presented you with science and you called me the silly name of "sexist". It should also be said that you attacked me for presenting evolutionary ideas, and you can't even explain why. Are you always so gratuitously unpleasant?

As far as Christian fundamentalists go, I would never call you that. Christian fundamentalists have the integrity to admit their positions are based upon faith rather than rationality, which is something you failed to concede even when I gave you the chance. By the same token, had you admitted that Political Correctness is your religion, and based upon faith, I would have asked you nicely not to force your values on others--the same as I would have done with a Bible thumper.

Namecalling is not only no substitue for intelligent discussion, it is the most graceless way of admitting you just lost the argument. Checkmate.


Last edited by Thelibrarian on Thu Mar 07, 2013 12:04 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
uwmonkdm
Phoenix
Phoenix


Joined: Mar 06, 2013
Age: 24
Posts: 764
Location: Canada

PostPosted: Thu Mar 07, 2013 12:01 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Thelibrarian wrote:

It's not my fault if you don't know why you believe the things you do. I presented you with science and you called me the silly name of "sexist". It should also be said that you attacked me for presenting evolutionary ideas, and you can't even explain why. Are you always so gratuitously unpleasant?

As far as Christian fundamentalists go, I would never call you that. Christian fundamentalists have the integrity to admit their positions are based upon faith, which is something you failed to acknowledge even when I gave you the chance.

Namecalling is the most graceless way of admitting you just lost the argument. Checkmate.


Sigh. Fine, I'll comply.
First of all, I didn't resort to name calling, you did by implying I'm an idiot incapable of "intelligent conversation".
"Sexist" is not an insult, if that is what you were referring to, it's a characterization of your opinion.

Reducing the complex phenomenon of human sexuality and even gender identity to "sperm and eggs" is extremely oversimplifying a complicated multidisciplinary issue.
In an evolutionary context, of course it makes sense... but that's not what this thread is about. In comparison to an evolutionary framework, the questions raised in this thread are an extremely microscopic issue, focused on two people - not an entire species.

I never used the word Christian, and again you're showing a tendency to be presumptuous.
My view on this topic has nothing at all to do with religion, I just happen to have a personal issue with the current day paradigm of "sexual liberation" which has ultimately just made sex worthless, as well as advanced the opinion (that you seem to hold) that men are simply mechanistic when it comes to sex. They want to bust a nut and that's it - if that's all your sex life involves then I feel bad for you.

I just didn't think it was worth the time to state my opinion to someone who showed in one response that they resort to extremely aggressive and negative behavior in conversation when they are opposed...
Plus I have to 'rewind' my Zizek lecture now. Confused

Happy now?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Thelibrarian
Phoenix
Phoenix


Joined: Aug 06, 2012
Posts: 2089
Location: Deep in the heart of Texas

PostPosted: Thu Mar 07, 2013 12:18 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

"Sexist" is not an insult, if that is what you were referring to, it's a characterization of your opinion"

Okay, let me narrow things down for you: Please define "sexist".

"Reducing the complex phenomenon of human sexuality and even gender identity to "sperm and eggs" is extremely oversimplifying a complex issue."

Again, I understand your opinion. I'm trying to find out why you hold this opinion. I do agree that though that biology, and particularly genetics, are very complicated. Are you familiar with Occam's Razor?

"In an evolutionary context, of course it makes sense... but that's not what this thread is about. In comparison to an evolutionary framework, the questions raised in this thread are an extremely microscopic issue, focused on two people - not an entire species."

Why don't you think evolution applies to individuals? As far as evolution's pertinence to this thread, I stated my position. I'm still waiting for an intelligent reason as to why you disagree.

"My view on this topic has nothing at all to do with religion, I just happen to have a personal issue with the current day paradigm of "sexual liberation" which has ultimately just made sex worthless, as well as advanced the opinion (that you seem to hold) that men are simply mechanistic when it comes to sex. They want to bust a nut and that's it - if that's all your sex life involves then I feel bad for you."

I'm thrilled to hear that you don't think the sexual revolution of the 1960's was an unmitigated good. Perhaps you could tell me how my position is contrary to that view.

I also initially identified my position as a generalization. So, of course it doesn't apply to all men, but it does apply to most. It sounds to me as if you have problems understanding the difference between all, some, and none. In science phenomena which aren't absolutes--which is just about everything--are described using probability and statistics. Do you have problems with these branches of mathematics too?

Am I happy? This conversation isn't about my emotions.

Finally, I would add that moral indignation, which is what you are expressing, has no bearing on the validity of a proposition. Only rational or empirical arguments determine validity.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
uwmonkdm
Phoenix
Phoenix


Joined: Mar 06, 2013
Age: 24
Posts: 764
Location: Canada

PostPosted: Thu Mar 07, 2013 12:41 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Thelibrarian wrote:
"Sexist" is not an insult, if that is what you were referring to, it's a characterization of your opinion"

Okay, let me narrow things down for you: Please define "sexist".


Saying things that characterize the majority of men or women as <blank>

Quote:

Again, I understand your opinion. I'm trying to find out why you hold this opinion. I do agree that though that biology, and particularly genetics, are very complicated. Are you familiar with Occam's Razor?

Why don't you think evolution applies to individuals? As far as evolution's pertinence to this thread, I stated my position. I'm still waiting for an intelligent reason as to why you disagree.


What does occam's razor have to do with this? There are no assumptions here. Human sexuality cannot be characterized using axioms or assumptions, with the exception of "Sex makes babies". You're not going to impress me with fancy words, give it up.

If you continue to imply I'm unintelligent I'm not going to bother talking to you, it's really off-putting and tells me you're not going to listen to my opinion anyway.
The position that "Men, in general, are less invested in emotional intimacy because they just want to spread their seed" is, as I've said, a reductionist view of a man's psyche. You're essentially reducing the man into a biochemical bag of juices, who's only purpose is to leak some out, preferably into a woman.
To say that the majority of men are a slave to their biological needs in this way, and experience little emotion in intimacy with a woman is a very good way to never have a good sex life. Ask any woman on here, I guarantee they would rather have a man who embraces emotional intimacy as well as physical.

Quote:

I'm thrilled to hear that you don't think the sexual revolution of the 1960's was an unmitigated good. Perhaps you could tell me how my position is contrary to that view.

I never said it was.. you asked me for my opinion Confused
You put forth the opinion that men just want to spread seed, without regard for emotional intimacy, so I didn't change anything in the context of my view on your opinion.

Quote:

I also initially identified my position as a generalization. So, of course it doesn't apply to all men, but it does apply to most. It sounds to me as if you have problems understanding the difference between all, some, and none. In science phenomena which aren't absolutes--which is just about everything--are described using probability and statistics. Do you have problems with these branches of mathematics too?


We've already established that you weren't referring to all men, stop beating the dead horse, but changing your stance to a "generalization" or the majority of men doesn't change anything I've said.
I don't have a 'problem understanding it' - you should really cut down on the condescension.
I'm a Mathematics major (among others) at one of the best mathematics universities in the world, sigh Confused

Quote:
Finally, I would add that moral indignation, which is what you are expressing, has no bearing on the validity of a proposition. Only rational or empirical arguments determine validity.

Human beings are not machines (my other major is Philosophy if you'd like to debate this point) - you're not going to find empirical evidence that "Men don't value emotional intimacy", especially since they do.
I'm not trying to "prove" anything, there is no way to do it. The best I could do is find statistics, with the assumption that men would be honest given the stigma in society against men being 'emotional'.

That being said, I cannot prove you wrong, nor can you prove me wrong. You're attempting to use logic and rationality to explain a phenomenon which is irrational (emotions).

Moral indignation? I wonder how I could have possibly come to a point where my speech sounds that way? Maybe your condescension Rolling Eyes


Last edited by uwmonkdm on Thu Mar 07, 2013 1:14 pm; edited 2 times in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Wrong Planet Autism Forum Index -> Love and Dating   
1, 2, 3  Next  

 
Read more Articles on Wrong Planet



Wrong Planet is a Registered Trademark.
Copyright 2004-2014, Wrong Planet, LLC and Alex Plank. Alex does public speaking for Autism.

Advertise on Wrong Planet

Alex Hotchalk / Glam 

Alex Plank  Aspie Affection 

Terms of Service - You must read this as a user of Wrong Planet | Privacy Policy

Subscribe: RSS Feed  Wrong Planet News  Wrong Planet Forums




fine art