Aspergers husband may have crush

Post Reply New Topic

Natesmom,

I'm presuming that you're still married - and want to stay that way right?

What your husband is doing seems safe to him but it's playing with fire. It's worse with aspies than with NTs because we're so naive about things at times. Sometimes it's difficult because we like someone as a "mate/buddy" but because we can't always read the signs (facial expressions and tone), we don't realise that the situation is changing. It's subtle and it happens and before you know it you're falling for someone because they've got similar interests.

All it takes is a few "wrong things" to happen at home and the new person may step in and try to take advantage of the situation by offering comfort.

I'm not saying that anything bad is happening right now. I'm sure it's all innocent. It's just that it should be too close for comfort.

I'm not sure how you should approach this without having a domestic but there must be some calm way to do it. Perhaps, at the very least, make sure that he knows that it's not permitted to have one-on-one lunches and meetings. He needs to have someone else present.

I'm not sure that this is really what you want to hear (don't know what you mean't by "don't attack me") so I'll leave it at that. If you want to talk more, you can either ask me directly in the forum or pm me. I learned from bitter experience and it nearly cost my marriage. It did however make us a stronger couple.

That is so true.

Before we were married, a girl swooped in and really tried to get him to like her. She sent her all sorts of emails and was pretty forward. They met in Peace Corps so she used his anxiety, depression and love for Africa to say that they shared that "common bond". She would send him letters even when she knew he was engaged. Letters that would end in "love". He was completely naive about it and said that he didn't like her in that way. She was still trying to get him if you know what I mean. It seriously almost cost us our marriage. We almost didn't get married because of it. I thought that he would be more aware now and he is to a point. At least I think he is.

The naive part is extremely real with him. I did talk with him and he stated that he would never have one on one lunches with her. He works with a lot of guys (computer programmers) and only a few females. "I think" he knows what it would look like if he were to leave with just her but I don't know for sure.

I am pretty naive and trusting as well.

Thank you for your help

Then why do you agree to go? Aspies may not hold eye contact much, but do talk to the person they're with. And not having anything to talk about with one's spouse on an outing is indicative of couple trouble, not of AS.

I don't think the eye gaze thing is so black & white. I never had eye gaze ability since an infant. However, I have learned by repeated correction (torture & punishment that would leave Ovar Lovaas circa 1965 looking meek) from neurotypicals in academia, as well as eye gaze focus skills developed thru my horse jumping activities, to be able to -- if I really concentrate and focus my attentions -- engage in the eye gaze thing for awhile if I want to. It IS extremely energy depleting for me, no doubt really taxes my different brain wiring functions, but I CAN do it if doing it is important to me. If I were interested in letting someone know I loved that person, I would definitely both want to and accomplish engaging in the eye gaze thing neurotypicals require to feel warm, confortable, and good about themselves and the situation. So, I would have to regard the failure to hold the eye gaze even by a person with AS -- especially one as high functioning and who can hold employment such as your husband, as rather dubious, and very likely an excuse.

That said, I would still give him the benefit of the doubt insofar as you want to stay married and he is TELLING you he feels likewise. I usually operate on the premis of giving people the benefit of the doubt they have good intentions rather than not so good, even when I have accumulated evidence indicating they may have, in fact, been up to no good. The approach all depends in where you want a particular situation to go and the ultimate outcome. People can play some very complex games, and regardless, you need to decide what outcome it is you desire, how to get there, and rise above what may be some of the more unpalatable aspects of what you may have found -- especially if the person is still evidencing a desire to have a relationship with you of any kind. If you want a positive outcome in your favor (i.e., what YOU want), then you can only get there thru positivity, not negativety. People gravitate toward and are attracted by positive people they find it fun and exciting to be with, not so with the negative, pessimistic, woe-is me types. It is sometimes a highly mental mind over emotions skill, but you have to decide what YOU want the outcome to be and what means the most to you.

Then go for what you want. Build on all the positives.

But please don't be governed in my comments, especially the earlier ones, by the fact I am in the opposite situation to yours. Love is what it is. It has its own form and time and boundaries and desires and truths. If you are in love with your husband, make this your #1 priority. In my case, I just fell in love with someone else who took me by surprise, but I know he is a person I would have loved even when we were 10 had I been in the right place at the right time to have met him then because the chemistry that's there is unmistakable.

Firstly, she didnt say he didnt talk, or that he didn't talk with her, she said he didn't talk about much. That is hardly uncommon, even when it is just an Aspie and his spouse.
But I see where this poster was trying to go with this, and feel that some clarification is needed.
This is not a sign of couple trouble.
I can tell you from personal experience, that there have been many occasions in which i have been somewhere, even at my request, in which I ended up sitting awkwardly in silence, with my wife and someone else.
Communication with the other person, especial a "meaningful" conversation, depends on whether we have moved said person from the stranger/acquaintance role, to something more meaningful.
Now if you are with your spouse, and a friend that is not a mutual friend of both of you, then you create a new situation where new rules now apply. And it is this very situation in which many, many Aspies began to show their, "AS colors". You are asking them to merge no less than three, "known" social rules, and apply all the rules correctly to both people, and even "blend" the rules some, (something aspies don't do well correctly).
In this case, the rules are, communication with a "significant other", "communication with a "co-worker/friend", not to mention, your asking that this all be done in a public place, perhaps even an unfamiliar place, you said you were eating, so throw in some other social rules for the environment you are in.
I dont feel I need to go on, as I am sure you are aware of the social limitations of aspies. even in those settings, my wife has learned, that if I am quiet, it is not because i dont want to talk to her, or the other person, im just feeling somewhat overwhelmed.

Liked your post.
I agree, but disagree at the same time with your above quote, however.
I too am considered high fuctioning.
Like you, I have learned to "mimic" the eye contact to a fairly successful degree. However, i have noticed, that the more overwhelming things are for me, the less eye contact I tend to make.
A situation like she mentioned, "a person I am close with, and a "friend/co-worked", public eating, i can only assume that there is the, "typical" noise of a cafe', at some point, my brain begins to become over-stimulated, so, in an attempt to try to decrease the amount of "over-stimulation" i am receiving, i will intentionally trim anything I can, to maintain my composure, and remain with the group, many times this means eye contact only, sometimes, it means less conversation AND eye contact from me.
Try having this dinner again, this time at your house. Here the setting is comfortable for him, and he has no distractions from light and sounds and other conversations. Just the 3 of you, I'll willing to bet that you see a big difference in his behavior when he realizes, its not the whole room full of strangers watching/judging him, its just his wife, and a friend/co-worker.

Nachtus01, I like your post, too. Are you sure you are not conflating the eye gaze problem with its derivative divided attention task problem? I can hold the eye gaze if I really focus and concentrate, even in a busy public place (despite the enormous energy depletion this costs me), but it is true I cannot engage in divided social congition tasks with another task. In essence, if I am being very attentive to making a neurotypical feel at ease with me on a social-emotional basis by endeavoring to hold eye gaze with the person, regardless of the setting, I cannot divide my attentioon in a way to be simultaneously attentive to environmental concerns going on around me. This happens whether in a one-on-one office visit or in a public place such as dinner in a restaurant. So, if there is some danger or threat int he environment, and I cannot do the divided attention task, while I am focusing and concentrating on attentions to the eye gaze, I may well miss seeing an environmental danger. That's why I usually only do in fact engage eye gaze and other social-emotional cognition with others when I know I am in a safe place. I do not necessarily regard dinner at a restaurant as being an unsafe place, and so I can do the eye gaze thing in a public place such as a restaurant -- with the caveat, it depends on what neighborhood the restaurant is in !

I do see your point, for me it is somewhat different. I actually do very well with multi-tasking. One of my high school teachers explained my brain to another teacher like this, "Most of the people we meet and know, mentally are like 2 or 4 lane roads. this is their multi-tasking ability limit. his is like a super highway, with 8 lanes." I was 16 at the time, but looking back now, I can tell you he was right on the money. That is exactly how my brain operates. It is nothing for me to sit in a restaurant and listen to my wife converse with me, while my two children pester me with questions, and read a menu, while thinking about other things in the "back of my mind". My mind functions with a great deal of ease and efficiency like this, and in fact, if I become, "overstimulated", its like several lanes are closed altogether, and the flow of information suddenly slows to a crawl.
Eye contact is one thing that can cause this to occur. I believe it is because I am "diverting" several of those, "lanes" to attempt to read the expressions and be prepared to respond, "appropriately". For me, eye contact requires approximately 4 lanes of traffic, 2-3 for processing the eyes and facial expressions, and 1 for responses, meanwhile, another lane is still being used for listening to the speaker, leaving me with 3 lanes for all other stimuli. which, when you consider that you still have to deal with other sounds, other sights, smells, sense of touch, plus taste processing, plus logistical analysis of movement to prevent accidental spills, or any other type of caveat, there a lot of processes that are now being forced to share only 3 lanes of traffic, and I know I haven't listed even half of the processes that could occur while my attention is now, "divided". this is why, if I feel I need to participate more with a group of 2 or more people, eye contact becomes far more fleeting, to try to allow some of the other traffic thru so that I dont end up with L.A. rush hour traffic in my head.

OK, I'll throw in my 2 cents worth.

Since you mentioned that he craves that deep, emotional connection, but something is holding him back(AS)....I am assuming that he is something like myself. His passion, computers, is something that he is able to be passionate about because it doesn't involve emotions. So, naturally he is very excited/stimulated to find someone to share that with him. And the fact that they are much alike, and spend alot of time together at work, will make that connection even stronger.

I can't say with any certainty whether she will be a threat to your marriage or not, but I think that if he was considering doing anything sexual with her, or otherwise, that he wouldn't mention her at home, much. He's a smart guy, remember. I think he's just really excited to find someone he can share his passion with, and relate to so well. And when he brings it home with him, it's just that it's on his mind alot. After all, he probably spends as much time with her, as he does with you, so it's a big thing to him and always fresh on his mind.

I'm sure there is some degree of attraction there, as it's tough to not like someone so similar to yourself. But, I think he's satisfied with the time he spends with her at work, and wouldn't worry about it much. He's just fulfilling his inability to feel deep emotional connections, with an opportunity to share his passion for his obsession, because that's the next closest thing that he is capable of doing.

The only thing you can do is congratulate him on his new friendship. And no, I don't think the "face thing" has anything to do with it. He'd probably ask you what the hell you were talking about if you brought it up, because most aspie guys don't notice things like that.

Do you want to let him go? Do "you" feel you'd like a different partner too? In my past relationships, (much to my agonizing pain), my partners always seemed to find who was good for them when they were still with me. It hurt me bad until I realized that I too was entitled to find what was right for me as well. I was somebody too. It was all up hill from that point of realization. It's only a crush when it's one-sided. If both sides are into it, it's an affair. I feel moreso threatened if my spouse had an emotional connection to someone than a sexual one because emotional connections lead to real partnerships and remarriages. A sexual one can only endure until it becomes a drag. Opposites attract. Similarities endure. Once when I had no suitors, I had a friend of my family suggest that I meet this young man called Michael. He said it would be a marriage made in Heaven. This family friend figured me out as well as he did this young fellow. BUT Michael had a beautiful, rich, NT girlfriend. He thought I smelled funny. They eventually married. Had a severly autistic child and the girl wanted out after less than 10 years. She already had a partner while she was still married. I, in the meatime, found another aspie and was happily married. Michael ended up working in the same building as me. He was terribly disappointed that I had married during "the decade" that he was married. That S.O.B. ( of all the unempathetic nerve!) He thought "I smelled funny". He ended up marrying another woman (NT) who totally abuses him. Don't wait for other people. Your life MUST go on and it shall.

How do you determine when "both sides are into it ?"

Take the following hypothetical, which is purely hypothetical:

Man A has a speciality in a very unique and little understood area, and is fascinated by people falling within that range. Woman B not only falls within than range but is prodigiously within that range, making her very rare. Woman B is looking for someone to work with her. Man A hears about her and seeks to help.

Upon meeting Man A realizes Woman B is rare and prodigious, and this is something that excites him in being able to study, help, and essentially "get into the mind of the savant on the same wavelength with the savant." Woman B likewise instantly recognizes Man A has the equally rare ability to help her and communicate with her on her wavelength, which in a lifetime she has not found.

Man A and Woman B carry on almost a year's very emotional intimate exchange of Woman B's very personal life with Man A because Man A has promised to do a very comprehensive on Woman B to help her get access and more significantly, her professional license and Woman B therefore gives him much very deep personal information about her life; and, in the course of this, Man A is extremely bothered by a "connected disconnectedness" arising from both Woman A's autism and the fact he discovers she has buried and transfered all her deepest emotional feelings and connections to her horse as means to cope with witnessing the self-immolation suicide of her mother, who she loved deeply, on her father's lawn.

Man A, however, does not initially believe Woman B has autism, but does understand all the rest of it. Man A, before re-confirming the autism, and more importantly proving it to himself, decides to engage in answering a question for which he has a deep curiosity: can he overcome the "connected disconnectedness" that is driving him "bat-shit crazy" in the savant Woman B because of the very fact she is prodigious -- in other words, deeply connect with her on a neurotypical level thought by some to be impossible for a savant ?

An experienced autism helper would know that people with autism, especially severe autism, personify their animals, and relate to and believe their animals not only can be but -- to them -- are in fact human. An experienced autism helper would also have met the standard of care in performing the autism re-confirming diagnosis before attempting to engage in any manuevers with Woman A to answer the above question for which Man A was so curious. But Man A does not do this.

Instead, Man A highly suspects, which he later confirms, that Woman B has an unusually high level of EQi social cognition for her savant and autism conditions. Not being able to wait any longer to answer his curious question, Man A makes a psychiatric manuever that should only be done by the most expert of all with Woman B designed to initiate the intimacy with her necessary to answer his lifelong question of curiosity: "is a prodigious savant capable of deeply connecting without the disconnect on the same wavelength with the neurotypical," Man A. So Man A initiates a very technical manuever to hijack and transfer to him all of Woman A's deepest emotional feelings that came from her feelings for her mother, which she buried into her "human" relationship with her horse for many, many years, and he does this by telling Woman B that Man A's 'father used to let Man A's horse come into the living room when Man A was a child.' Man A uses other horse-related conversation with Woman B over time to reinforce this manuever.

The manuever is very highly successful, and Woman A transfers her deepest emotional connections to Man A and begins confiding in him and expressing her very deepest feelings with him. Man A seemingly derives great enjoyment from this new state of affairs, and being able to get into the mind of the prodigious savant on the same wavelenght between them -- there is a real deep and true communication Man A has established by his manuever. Man A cultivates this deep emotional connection with Woman A, and sometimes communicates with her on weekends, late evenings, and very early mornings -- outside of ordinary professional business hours, although there is no physical sexual contact. But through this nearly year long process, Man A knows and is aware his manuever, enjoyment, and cultivation of Woman A's deepest connection with him and sharing of her feelings with him has caused Woman B to deeply bond with Man A and become very emotionally dependent on Man A's essentially serving as her psychiatrist and administering (very helpfully) to her psychiatric needs. Man A, moreover is married, and Woman B is also married, but in Woman B's case her marriage is highly autism-protective and serves her autism dependent caretaking needs -- Man A thru this bonding-deep emotional connection-sharing of Woman A's deepest feeling with him, knows Woman A cannot share this deep emotional connection and feeling in the level she can wiht Man A with her husband. But Man A, still intensely intrigued with and deriving his own benefits from this connection he has established with prodigious savant Woman B, continued for many more months to incubate and foster the deep emotional connection relationship he transfered to himself from her horse.

Almost six months after the hijacking-transfer maneuver of Woman B's deepest emotions from her horse to him, Man A, who doubted Woman B's autism, obtains irrefutable proof she does indeed have severe autism -- and Man A with all the bells and whistles and hinself a neurotypical prodigy is stunned by the impact of Woman B's savantism being so prodigious that despite not having any of the bells and whistles, her savant abilities knew she had autism shen he didn't. Man A then immediately initiates the autism re-confirming diagnosis a competent autism helper would have done before making the horse-to-himself deep emotions tranfers manuever six or more months earlier. In the course of this diagnostic process, Man A, for the first time, see many photographs and films of Woman B as an infant, toddler, and very young child interacting with her mother, and realizes that Woman B's mother, who had a special education credential, doctoral education in educational psychology, and provided all Woman B's earliest autism interventions, was Woman A' only conduit to communite and be understand by others in the outside world -- in essence, because Woman B's mother through her training was able to establish the same wavelength with Woman B as Man A did by his horse-to-himself emotions transfer manuever.

But Man A has made a drastic error. He made the wrong assumption by not timely doing the re-confirming autism diagnosis, of wrongly assuming that when Woman B's mother self-immolated Woman B tranferred all her deepest emotions to her horse because Woman B did not love her mother. Man A, through these many intimate photo and films now realizes Woman B transferrred and buried all her deepest emotions from her mother to her horse because she really loved her mother and had the deepest emotional connection with her and seeing her mother self immolate on her father's lawn was so devastating for Woman B it threw her (a usually overly happy person) into a very deep and damaging suicidal depression for a couple years after witnessing the suicide. Man A, now realizes he has made a very drastic error, because while Man A viewed the horse-to-himself deep emotional connection manuever as some sort of savant/neurotypical "game play," the emotions of Woman A he transferred from her horse which were the same one than she transferred to her horse from her mother, came inextricably bundled with the full range of deep emotional connections of love.

But Man A is not allowed to be intimate with Woman B and he knows it. He knew it before he experimented with the horse-to-himself transfer manuever. But due to this grave error, now Woman B is extremely bonded to Man A and very dependent on his psychiatric administrations to the well-being of her psyche, as well as on his having established with her the deep emotional connections necessary to be on the same wavelength with her and required for anyone to communicate for her to the outside world. Man A knows Woman B has had extreme problems communicating with other referrals for this reason -- Man A has the very rare ability to deal with this significant problem of Woman B's savant autism condition, while almost eveyr other referral does not. There are likely only two other referrals possible int he entire Country who have this level of expertise to take the place of Man A for Woman B.

But Man A seems to have a dislike or upset with autism generally, and seemingly thinks lesser of people who have autism, as does his employer. Man A's employer is pressuring Man A to end the relationship with Woman B that is helping her so much. Man A decides to go one step further to resolve the competing pressures, and decides to create a confrontation for Woman B to bring her face-to-face with the grief-loss process she experienced with the death of her mother -- he does so by blocking Woman B's acceptance and validation with him to serve as the "loss," knowing that this oculd have very severe repercussions for Woman B. Woman B, responds with confusion, and confides in Man A he has transferred her feeling of love for her horse that she transferred to her horse from her mother, to him and she has fallen in love with him and not only is in love with him but deeply bonded and very much in need of him in her life.

Man A, in a panic that he has made Woman B feel intimate with him (which could have repercussion on his career), terminates his help to her, knowing this will irreparably throw Woman B into a very, very deep depression, and completely destroy her trust in humans and most especially in helpers of her autism, and destroy all the positive therapy from her having transferred her deep emotional connections feelings from her mother to her horse and set her backwards in a tailspin.

Woman B's husband is not without knowledge of all of this -- he has distressingly been watching this go on for many months now, and knows Man A initiated the horse-to-himself transfer manuever that caused Woman B to fall in love with Man A without regard to the possibility it would, as a side effect destroy husband's marriage with Woman B, who can no longer be intimate with husband even on a more superficial level -- and Man A know about this problem because he knows husband has TBI. Man A also in the long course of the year did two other things deleterious to Woman B's marriage: one was an attempt to refer her for contraceptives she did not ask for or want, that would impact her sexual relationship with her husband (which contraceptives she rejected), and second, was failure to ensure Woman B would have follow-up appointments with a helper of inhalents to her dyspnea needed for her to be able to lie on her back to have sexual intercourse with her husband. As a result of the latter, all sexual intercourse between Woman B and her husband ceased.

Neither Woman B nor husband want Man A to terminate all the help and fulfillment of serious needs he is to Woman B's well-being in her life. Woman A and her husband are devastated. Man A is probably also somewhat devastated.


The question again is: "How do you determine when "both sides are into it ?"

And the related question: when did it become "an affair?"

And the third question is: since there has been no sexual relationship between Man A and Woman B, and Woman B is in a unique and specific need of Man A's help to her condition, and terminating this in the middle of working out the horse-to-himself transfer and unleashing of emotions the recreation of Woman B's loss of her mother has caused her would be not only devastating but potentially extremely harmful to her health, is and/or should Man A be allowed to continue helping Woman B ?

I would sincerely appreciate people's feedback on this.

apologies for the typos:
"shen" = when

All references to "Woman A" should read "Woman B."

I forgot to add the following to the above hypothetical:

Man A has been throughout the year long process, very validating and a positive influence on Woman A's efforts to paint exquisit prodigious savant artwork and engage in her other activities.

During the 4 face-to-face meetings with Woman B (all other communication was almost daily and mroe than one time a day sometimes), Man A did not prevent the very deep emotional connection with Woman B expressing her feelings, and in the last meeting six weeks ago, Man A, as Woman B was leaving, manuevered to shake her hand by theld it for a very long time close within her boundaries and looked for a very, very long time deeply into her eyes -- in a way that usually invites romantic intimacy. And it created, for Woman B, deep feelings of romantic intimacy she believed she was sharing in the moment with Man A in a way inviting more sharing in the future.

again, apologies for the typos. All references to "Woman A" are supposed to read "Woman B." I have fine motor control problems with my fingers, and do apologize.

My feedback: Woman B should consider seeking legal advice from someone specialising in medical-related malpractice and immediately gather any evidence of suspected malpractice that might be covered up later by any persons involved. Woman B should also go about seeking all the support she can to enable the best recovery from her experiences.

outlier, that would seem to be the "risk management" approach. However, I am really at a loss. I have spent the past two days intensively researching all legal materials and medical statutes in Florida. As well as posed an anonymous hypothetical by an anonymous caller about anonymous medical provider hospitals about autism treatments available in Florida -- I am talking about Temple Grandin style touch therapies, boundary crossing autism therapies to help with emotional dysregulation and alexythymia, and various oxytoxin studies of treatments both by administration of the hormone as well as by touch and sensory therapies. The overwhelming materials I am finding suggest that the autism helper in the hypothetical did nothing wrong in his approach to the autistic savant patient; in fact the existing prevailing case law in Florida would make his termination of these therapies to her he has begun to initiate so successfully to address her numerous autism problems medical malpractice by bring about extreme damage to her. Florida's medical licensing board confirmed to the anonymous caller that such autism helpers can indeed render such psycotherapies to their autism patients, and when the board referred me to their legal counsel at the Florida Attorney General's Office inquiring about their Americans With Disabilities Act self-evaluation on the Florida Bd of Medicine to be providing proper and cutting edge autism therapies and suffient numbers of autism helpers to address even rare conditions such as prodigious savant autism, the Attorneys General's lawyers admitted to me they did not believe they were in compliance in Florida for treatment protocol for adults with autiusm. The definition in the medical statutes for such psychotherapies is pretty explicit there the line is crossed -- FS 491.0112 plainly states the line lies here:

"(c) "Sexual misconduct" means the oral, anal, or vaginal penetration of another by, or contact with, the sexual organ of another or the anal or vaginal penetration of another by any object."

Moreover, in the context of a person with autism having marital problems with the emotional, tactile, and alexythymic aspects, it does not even appear there is any legal prohibition on kissing therapy -- so long as the above line is not crossed. The "other" prevailing Florida Statutes makes clear it is only "sexual activity outside the scope of the practice or the scope of generally accepted examination or treatment of the patient" that is prohibited. That provision must be read in harmony with the other above provision, and together with cutting edge autism therapies for adult with autism some of whom are having lreational marital problems.

Under the above reading, the autism helper, Man A has done nothing wrong, and Woman B nothing wrong in falling in love with in him reponse to his therapies to unleash her bound-up deep emotional feeling to establish a truly connected connect with her, because the line has not been crossed. It is very interesting in Florida.

Moreover, In the year 2000, and again in 2002, Florida Courts have struck down the intimacy prohibitions in the rules regulation doctors in Florida as uncionstitutional under the Florida State Constitution, and they are very likely unconstitutional under the Federal Constitution as well. For one thing, when the Florida Bd. of Medicine tried to impose a lifetime ban on a doctor having a fully sexual relationship with his former patient and even marrying him or her, this prohibition was expressly struck down to enable such relationships to be assessed on a case-by-case basis -- essentially, whether a doctor is exploiting or imposing undue inflience or taking advantage of the patient when the patient is somehow vulnerable to the doctor, chiefly a power imbalance situation.

But now, supposing the autism helper, Man A falls in love with Woman B, knowing she has already fallen in love with him -- there is an answer to this dilemma also. It is the same answer one would give to a person who believed the person had a right to have their autism helper doctor prescribe medical marijuana to treat his or her autism and be allowed to smoke it openly in public in a State where there were no no medical marijuana laws and the Controlled Substances Act still schedules marijuana as prohibited -- the answer is, Man A and Woman B can engage in all the autism therapies that are not prohibited, as analysed above, but if and/or when they decide they might want the relationship to turn more sexual in a way it would trangress the scope of the plain bright line language of the above statutes, then either the doctor or the patient -- or both -- need to file in court for a declaratory judgment and an injunction to declare the Medical Bd in violation of provisions of the State and Federal Constitution and other federal anti-discrimination laws and to enjoin the enforcement of the statutes.

This is how people who do not want to break the law go about opting out of laws that do not make sense for them and people in their circumstances. This is how you protect a license and protect against malpractice, at teh same time protecting the patient with autism's right to the full range of cutting edge autism therapies to which she is entitles, and to prevent the doctor from violating his Hippocratic Oath to "first, do no harm," of the irreparable type that would be caused by terminating therapy that is beginning to be highly successful for a person's autism and throwing the person into a severe suicidal depression. The latter is where, under Florida law, the actionable malpractice would lie -- especially terminating such a patient before obtaining a PET receptor scan of all her pathways to see how she is doing under the treatment therapy that has been provided, as well as to see the damage that would be done by the malpractice termination.

Florida's Medical Bd. and their lawyers at the Florida Attorney General's Office both confirmed they do not know squat about cutting edge treatments for adult autism especially prodigious savants, have not regulated this or self evaluated it as required by the ADA laws, and they have not provided qualified doctors and clinics in this state for referral for such treatment elsewhere than the uniquely successful autism helper Woman A already has -- they admitted they would likel lose any such lawsuit challenging these circumstances.

It just goes to show, every prodigious savant should do his or her homework to know when they have been possibly misadvised by their autism helper's having been potentially misadvised by some "risk management" people who do not know either the law or cutting edge autism treatments !