Equal Value In Relationships

Post Reply New Topic

So now you are saying that the transactional stuff is for dating and up until you have an exclusive talk, and then you just quit that stuff? Or am I reading you wrong? Would at least explain a few of the strangeties in the argument.



I thought an argument was that we should offer value to those we date. They should have a good time, even if we need to go to the gym or abuse our natural preferences in order to even get a date. I always claimed this is a bad idea and that you always need to be yourself and never compromise on that. So, are you saying you agree with me now?



That's not how I have interpreted this in the past, but yes, I agree.



That's altruism, but if I remember it correctly, you thought altruism was a horrible thing.



I don't think there is an "unearned" or "underserved" in a relationship. If you use those statements about your partner, you likely are in a power struggle with her.



Time is a matter of priority. If you love somebody you give them a high priority, and thus want to spend a lot of time with them. If you fail to give your wife a high priority, and rather use your time on other things, you likely don't love her. So, giving your time to somebody is not part of value or transactions, it's the primary indicator that you care about somebody.



I prefer to create new shared interests rather than selecting to "date" only girls I share those with to begin with. I find that more efficient and it also checks the ability to compromise early on.

Trade is an ongoing activity throughout a relationship. My wife could break the deal by leaving me, although it is in neither of our best interests to do so. She has already given herself to me in exchange for the selfish pleasure of having me in her life. I am her reward; she is mine. But that is only one aspect of the relationship--having the other person with you. Trade is a daily activity we are engaged in.


That's not even remotely what I said. Read it again.


It's not altruism if you get something out of it in exchange. I'm not sacrificing anything. We've already been over this.


Nope. A power struggle ASSUMES an imbalance. Equal trade and cooperation isn't a struggle. I don't want anything from my wife (or anyone else) that I haven't earned or don't deserve. I would never give my wife anything if I didn't think it rightfully belonged to her.


Also known as value...


Value


Reward


Ok, but what is love? Is love some mystical feeling "deep in your heart" that nobody else can see or use, or is love a consequence of those feelings? I don't believe in feelings. Yes, we have feelings. Yes, we feel affection. But that love is evidenced by what love DOES. If love isn't tangible, it's not real. Objective love is physical and measurable. As such, love is less a feeling and more a choice. It's an action, not a noun. If you make a claim to love someone and yet treat them as though they have low value, that's not love. If there's no reward, there's no love.


But caring for someone by giving them time, as I've just demonstrated, is a tangible act of love since time and physical presence is an objective reward. You've created value by spending time with someone. So...yeah, that's value and transaction. Your argument has committed suicide.


Ummmm...huh? How do you mean "create new shared interests"?

There've been times I was interested in a girl because I valued her uniqueness, although I found it difficult to articulate exactly what it was about her I valued so much. A "pickup" technique I often advise is to take interest in the person rather than in any one specific interests of hers, and the rest will follow. One example was if you're surrounded by girls who only like to ride 4-wheelers in the mud, your options are severely limited if you're not into mud riding. You would handle this--because you're interested in HER, you value HER--by being up front with your inexperience in riding 4-wheelers. You're only interested in it because SHE's interested, and SHE herself is the reward you're after. So you ask her to take you riding and maybe teach you how to drive 4-wheelers in the mud. You get to be with her; she gets to feel important through engaging you in an activity she enjoys.

I briefly dated a girl who was passionate about Barbie dolls. She was scared I'd make fun of her. So I asked her to show me her collection and tell me a little about the dolls. Meeting people where they are in terms of their values is always a good entry point for starting a relationship.

But then, too, we sometimes find our respective values come into conflict. No big deal...you just break up. That's why I regard breaking up as positive. It's an understanding that mutual goals cannot be reached together, and the goals of the relationship are best achieved with freedom apart from one another. Being together is the most liberating state because cooperation and trade enhances effectiveness, but it accomplishes nothing if both partners are shackled to values they don't share.

Depending on what you mean by "creating interest," that may or may not be efficient or effective. It is a poor choice to mold yourself after another person for the sake of "creating interest" if that's what you mean. I don't mind taking an active part in activities of interest to someone else but not to me. But it is time with a person that I want that I intend to reward her for by taking part in an activity she enjoys. I don't have to sacrifice my identity to do that. I don't have to compromise my morals and values to do that. I don't have to match my partner for skill or aptitude to do that. I don't have to spend more money than I can afford to do that. And if taking part in an activity meant such a compromise, it means she's just not the girl for me.

I also don't believe the earliest stages of dating and developing relationships requires exclusivity. My reward at that stage is simply not spending an entire weekend alone. If that's the case, I'm not worried about "inefficiency" or "compromise" because I'm not going to have any trouble finding a girl I share values with. There really just aren't that many girls I don't share values with in the first place.

I don't think we will get any further with this. You use words like value, transaction, reward, earn and deserve in a context I refuse to use those words in. I see no place at all for these concepts in love or relationships. They are job-market terms, and potentially terms used in social interaction, but that should be it. All of these are contexts controlled by NT behavior, and I don't find that behavior natural in ANY context, but I have to adapt in the job market and when socializing with strangers. I wouldn't even dream about using them in a relationship as that would signal all the wrong things about the relationship. It signals it is a power struggle, that you are only into it for values and rewards (tit-for-tat). Part of the power struggle is that you would withhold things you don't think your partner earned or deserved and that you would expect your partner would do the same to you. It also means that you would desert your partner when you feel the grass might be greener elsewhere and that you have to expect your partner will do the same. The vows (and marriage) are not really worth anything because of how the relationship operates, and because it is so easy to break up today. The latter has strong evidence based on the many marriages that dissolve today.

My view of a relationship is that it is not kept together with vows or value & reward. It is kept together by strong feelings alone, and those make the primitive tit-for-tat exchange unnecessary. There should be an altruistic attitude in a relationship, and no "earn" or "deserve" clauses. You simply never would withhold anything because of such primitive concerns. And, no, just because you are altruistic doesn't mean you get no rewards or value. Altruism only means you don't do something because you expect something else (the tit-for-tat game). Instead, I'd claim that in a more natural ND relationship, you expect value and reward, but it should be unrelated to past interaction.

I don't think trade has any place whatsoever in a relationship (or in courtship).



I disagree. Simply by using the terms earn and deserve means you are viewing relationships as a power struggle. Which has a lot of evidence given that basically all NT social behavior has an aspect of a power struggle, and so this is a part of almost everything NTs do. Since you are basically arguing from the NT side of things, you cannot escape the power struggle dimension of it.



Nope. Romantic/true love is a strong feeling ONLY. Sure, you should show love with actions (rather than words), but that doesn't make love a choice or a commitment. Choice and commitment is a type of friendship, not romantic love.



I think they do. When they are not, it's not worth pursuing. Like, if a girl is interested in me but also dates five other guys, that would be the end of my interest. I cannot risk creating an attachment to her if she is likely to move on to somebody else, and if I don't feel I can safely attach, then it is not worthwhile.



Well, I can get along with many girls too, but I seldom fall in love with somebody, and so I cannot waste such an opportunity by not compromising.

The people in here remind me of clocks.

This is because your ideas of relationships aren't rooted in objective reality. Real interactions with women, women themselves, and quite possibly yourself are things and people you put little value in and, I'm sure, even have outright disdain for.


If you want to talk primitive, there's nothing more primitive than feelings and mindless knee-jerk reactions. But sophistication and intellect are things you have little use for, anyway.


If it doesn't, then there's no logical reason for the relationship.


WHAT POWER STRUGGLE? Symbiotic relationships happen when both organisms thrive on the product of the other. There's no struggle when both parties are equally vested in the relationship.


Ummm...feelings don't keep you dry when it rains or warm when it's freezing cold. Houses you build or buy do. Feelings don't make babies. Sex does. Feelings don't cause food to magically fill your stomach. Hard work from either growing food in a garden or purchasing it from a grocer does. Feelings aren't objective. My wife might feel all the love in the world for me, but if she's not WITH me, what good is that love? And what use does she have for me if I FEEL love for her but still want to pursue other women to satisfy my "needs"? And what use does she have for me if I'm never home, never take care of the kids, never earn money to help keep lights on and water running? And what use does she have for me if I'm displeased with how she runs the house and I beat her for it? Cheating, leeching, and beating are not in her best interest. She can love me all she wants, but if this is how it goes, is her love really enough? Well, it's enough to get her killed. It's senseless to say "love is a feeling" but a person's love drains you, puts you in danger, and neglects you. Likewise, if your own "feelings" for someone exposes you to harm and neglect, what exact purpose does it serve?

But if we BOTH actively contribute to the relationship, I know that my cheating, beating, and leeching ultimately result in my own demise. The rational mind translates feeling into positive action and expectation. I don't have to be a giver at the mercy of a parasitic abuser. I don't have to give when I feel that my gift is undeserved. I don't have to reject other women because sleeping with them would make me feel guilty. But I WANT to give my wife things or do things for/with her because she deserves it. I'm much better off sleeping with the woman I love than risking it all cheating, mindlessly giving in to base urges other people call "feeeeeelings." Doing good for an exclusive romantic partner ultimately results in good for yourself. I've said before you can tell a lot about a person by looking at the people they date or marry. But you can also tell a lot about how a person regards himself by how he treats his partner. If you love yourself, you'll work to enhance the lives of those you have relationships with, whether friends or lovers. Self-haters, on the other hand, will almost always either abuse or neglect those they claim to love. The archetypal bum living in mom's basement playing video games and eating Cheetos all day who's lucky enough to have a woman fall through the floor might be lucky in the short term. But he won't be able to keep her in the long term because he's negligent. And even if she stays, something I've noticed is people in relationships often take on the worst traits of the other. If she was physically fit and attractive by most standards, she'll end up overweight with myriad health problems because she has no REASON to expect more out of herself or her relationship.

Same thing happened to me. I developed several bad habits later in high school that I couldn't break throughout my 20's. I ended up weighing over 230 lb. My wife wasn't quite so motivated to maintain good habits, either. I got sick of looking and feeling bad, so I became more active and lost most of the excess weight by fasting. That partially motivated my wife to start running, which I took up to support her, which made me feel better, which made me want to perform better on the course, which led to...a slough of things that have us both feeling healthier, more positive, and more motivated.

People who put reason over primitive feelings are able to have positive expectations that result in better quality of life. That's not to say I don't have feelings for my wife. But the feelings are tied to the VALUE I place on my time with her. They're backed up by objective reality. I feel the way I do for a REASON.

If your approach to relationships is thoughtless and mindless, then you're pretty much a no-value automaton open to abuse. I would ask whether it's a good thing to make decisions and act thoughtlessly, whether it's good to tolerate abuse or become an abuser yourself. And if you don't FEEL that's in your best interest, you might ask yourself whether you really only act on feelings or if your own worldview is dependent on objective reality. If you're actually basing relationships on reason over blind emotion, perhaps it's time to make a more conscious effort of it, keep your expectations high, and start enjoying more consistent results from your life and relationships.


At the earliest stages of dating, you really don't know WHO you're interested in or who's going to your best match. It doesn't really make sense to say I'm ONLY going to go out with this girl or that girl when you really don't know them that well. I don't waste time becoming "attached" to someone who I don't even really know. I'm not sure what you mean exactly by "attachment," but even in psychological terms I'm not crazy about it. It has a purpose and a place, like with parenting. I'm not sure I'd consider attachment in the usual sense as appropriate when discussing dating. The reason why has to do with how an individual defines self, and I feel as though this hangs too much responsibility for one's identity and self-esteem on another person.

So for my purposes, "attachment" isn't really a term I use in discussing dating.

But even if it were, at the earliest stages I don't consider it useful because of too many unknowns at that stage.

I also find it useful to keep a broad definition of what a "date" is, and it's not a definition restricted to purely romantic interest. It's a process of exploration. I might see a girl as someone who MIGHT be interesting to me and have potential value in the long term. But in spending time alone with her I may find that's not the case. Maybe I'm not in a position to commit at this point in time and not interested in someone who is ready to commit--but I'm open to the possibility of a relationship should that ever change (obviously). It doesn't do me (or her) any good if we have to commit the instant we make eye contact. But maybe I feel ok committing to someone after I've spent time with her and gotten to know her a bit better. I look at "mass" dating as a means of doing that. Eventually people will tend to narrow their dating pools and become exclusive. I just don't think it's sensible to do that early on.

Most people don't look at dating on those terms. Most people tend to seek out exclusive relationships from the get-go. If you don't struggle with dating to begin with, that's not really going to be a problem because the kind of (NT) person who does that can adapt to any kind of expectation and likely already knows a number of girls he could be involved with. Jumping to an exclusive relationship right away is a non-issue. But if, say, I were to relocate and I DIDN'T know anybody? Simple. I'd do the same thing I did when I moved where I live now. I'd get involved in the arts community and a church. I wouldn't rush things. I'd make friends, including MOOS. I'm not above bars, either--I just personally never had much luck with them. I wouldn't ask whether a girl has a bf or not. If I'm doing community theater like I used to do and another cast member seems friendly to the idea of having a beer after rehearsal, it's a date. Maybe there's a single co-worker who's free Friday night. Maybe I've put a small trio together for acoustic shows and my cajon player has a sister who has some free time after practice. Or maybe there's a girl in the audience who seems really nice. I mean...when you've just met someone, there's too much you don't know. There's no REASON to commit to someone, but practically every REASON for friendship (because friendship ultimately benefits ME).

[DIGRESSION ALERT]
While I'm on that topic, that's why I don't believe there really is such a thing as a friendzone. It doesn't exist in objective terms. It's just another way of telling someone "no, thanks." It doesn't practically exist because the friendzoner wouldn't have been interested in you in the first place. In practice, this person doesn't even really want to be friends, so there's no purpose or REASON to try to remain friends with that person. Besides, you're not interested in being friends with her in the first place, or why be so concerned over being friendzoned? It doesn't make sense. Either a person is attracted to you for his or her own reasons, or that person is not attracted to you at all. Doesn't matter what your "status" is. You might have been friends with someone for years with no romantic interest at all before one or both of you feels an attraction for the other or is willing to explore the possibility of a romantic relationship. The more MOOS you're friends with, the higher the likelihood that this will happen. My wife and I were acquaintances for a few years before we found a common interest: a history of bad relationships with users and emotional blackmail. I'd been seeing, like, three girls all right about the same time and I made no bones about not being up for a relationship right then. My "friend" at the time was in fear for her life, so being close at all times became a safety issue. Our relationship evolved out of that. Even after we broke up and began seeing other people, that deep friendship never went away. We couldn't stay away from each other no matter how hard we tried, and that eventually resulted in marriage and children. For me, it was a conflict over WHY I was with her in the first place--because of guilt, or an irrational fear that she might destroy herself if I'm out of the picture? Or was there a genuine value, or something more than the mindless drama of people around who, without meaning to, forced us to be together? Over time I saw her as more than a helpless child who couldn't take care of herself, or as my own feelings being something more than guilt over what might happen if I left her.

If you're so worried about the imaginary friendzone, or this nonsense about what current relational status really means, it really does become difficult for some, especially ND's, to ever form foundational relationships with women they might actually have a chance with. It's not helpful at all to understand the friendzone as a permanent condition or bf/gf as even a permanent relationship. I always like to ask, "Just how much boyfriend does she really have?" I've noticed a disturbing trend especially among women who keep men in the wings until they break up with their current bf. It's disturbing because men, and I'd say ESPECIALLY ND men, tend to view these relationships with a sort of unspoken code of honor. If your goal is to date a woman you give high value, but you cannot date her because she's already got the next guy picked out, how do you ever hope to date this (type of) woman? Logically, you have to see that a) the honor system doesn't work, and b) the honor system really isn't all that honorable. Those men aren't going to reject a woman just because she broke up with a guy and every man deserves a fair chance to have her. Yet ND's are often sold on the lie that this is how it works. However, if you cultivate those friendships and find yourself being the guy she's spending the most time with, who's really her boyfriend? If you're more her boyfriend than her boyfriend is, it doesn't take much effort to tip her relationship right over the ledge while you step into that role.

For the inexperienced and socially challenged, approaching serious relationships from the outset as strict serial monogamy is fraught with inappropriate, unrealistic demands on the person one is trying to date. Breakups are inevitable no matter how you choose to date. You end up doing more emotional harm to yourself because it's difficult to see them as positive experiences. The first time it happens, you feel as though your life is utterly ruined. The next time, you wonder if you'll ever find someone. After that, you want to know what's so horrible about you that you'll never have a gf. It's wrongheaded because it's a way of judging your own value by an unreasonable standard--your ability to compromise and manipulate a romantic partner. In practice, most people who ONLY jump from one relationship to the next don't actually demand that much from their relationships. It's heartbreaking when the relationship disintegrates. But they are also accustomed to the normal pattern and lifecycle of such relationships such that breakups aren't all that catastrophic when they happen. For someone who doesn't understand this or have much experience with it, or has self-esteem and identity issues to begin with, a small number of failed interactions or relationships is enough to crush their motivation for working towards the next one.

For those people, I'm totally against forming those kinds of unrealistic and unreasonable "attachments" specifically because they do more harm than good. Rational relationships, grounded in objective reality, keep the value of the partner in view at all times. I may value her, but I don't share her values. The high value I give her comes with the expectation that I'll leave her if leaving her means we both achieve our own individual values, whether those are shared values or not. To remain with her when our values are in conflict would be self-destructive. This I cannot do.

However, given circumstances, one's value might potentially outweigh their behavior or ability. What my wife means to me now is predicated on our very long history and the circumstances surrounding the formative years of our relationship and everything that happened. That's never going to change. She's too valuable to me to lose under ANY circumstances. Changing physical and mental capacities won't affect that, which I believe is what you refuse to understand or acknowledge. Value has the ability to bridge the dynamics of life. The problem of divorce is a product of mindless individuals forming relationships they have no objective interest in, no real value assigned or invested, no real-world understanding of the relationship between one's partner and the fluidity of time. They pay lip service to value, but no real-world appreciation for it. "Richer-poorer" means something when you say your vows, especially when you're poor to begin with. It means something when you're successful and you enjoy all the comforts money can buy. But it suddenly loses its meaning in valleys following the peaks. Suddenly poverty and disease/disability "aren't what I signed up for." Divorce happens not because people lose value and have high expectations. Divorce happens when people have no objective values or expectations to begin with. Probably half of those people never see it coming, but those kinds of things should be apparent when you're first dating. You'll know within 3 months if you've been exclusively dating that long. I think most people do and just live in denial.

And if that's a potential risk, just don't get married. You might argue, "well, then nobody should ever get married." Guess what? It's not a new concept. It goes all the way back to Jesus, and it certainly wasn't original when Jesus hinted at it (the Old Testament spares nothing when it comes to marriage). But it is, in our time no less than in ancient times, difficult to grasp. Young people simply just aren't taught to view relationships and marriage this way. For them, blind emotion is the ONLY thing that matters. This has made them greedy and corrupt, valuing nothing and no one, not even themselves. They don't know real love without demands because they've come to view love and giving as something they are owed, something they can demand with nothing in exchange. They don't believe they should have to work for it. They believe everyone is deserving. Functional relationships are for those who deserve them and work for them. Two people who aren't interested in mutual support and the long-term value of another individual shouldn't be together in the first place.

My daughter just turned 10 years old and I've already had this kind of discussion with her. She understands it. But she is still a child. She hasn't quite figured out the balance between rational self-interest and the self-interest of others, how the two interact and produce positive results. She's developed an arrogant streak as of late and has to learn that setting a high value for yourself doesn't mean treating others as though they are beneath you. We're trying to teach her that it's exactly the opposite--expecting the very best of and for yourself means elevating others, not because others are special for their own sake, but because of the benefits building relationships has for you. I teach for the same reason. Leaving a lasting influence in my field of study only elevates the art itself. Musical arts are how I make my livelihood. Elevating music can only enhance that for me. Cultivating leaders within the arts is especially beneficial and even essential in that regard. People with that kind of outlook, and I particularly have my daughter in mind, tend to be more generous and more compassionate than the leeches and the looters out there. Relationships grounded in objective reality, even romantic relationships, are more likely to benefit young married couples in the long run.
[/DIGRESSION]


To each his own.

Compromise is the act of mutual sacrifice for limited gains. It's just a way for everyone involved to remain equally unhappy.

I'm not at a stage of life in which I have to be concerned with finding a mate. I consider that aspect of my life fulfilled to the point I need not attempt it again in the event of the unthinkable. But I do think people are best served acting constantly with their values, and relationships are no different.

Much of the problem as I see it has to do with what people want out of a relationship and their ability to pursue relationship goals. Those goals in the conversations I've read on WP have to do with the same objective results, cause/effect relationships that ND's perceive to exist in the NT world. Relationships are relationships. That remains true regardless of ND or NT. We on both sides essentially value the same thing--relationships. I believe most of the difficulty lies within ND perception of just what that is. It means something different to us than with NT's. It looks attractive. It looks like something to be valued, something to be desired. It looks like something we're just supposed to have in order to be legitimate human beings. And that's where the misperception lies. You might say, "well, they're just lonely." WHY??? Why is that? I believe that feelings of loneliness are mostly a learned response. Mostly, I said. Status is misused as a means of identity for those who don't understand individual identity. In that context, loneliness is irrational because you simply just don't need other people THAT MUCH or in THAT WAY. Relationships are earned through productive effort, same as anything else worth having. We miss that too often. In our world, popularity appears effortless when it's really not. Maybe more natural for some people than others, but that's merely a question of ability, predisposition, or aptitude. You can learn or acquire the ability to become popular. But the basic root of all relationships is the value one brings to them. I enjoy playing piano. I'm content playing piano for my own pleasure. But my time for playing is limited by my basic needs. But if a church or a school can use me for my abilities and compensate me for the time I devote to playing for them, I can meet my basic needs doing nothing more than only what I enjoy doing. That's meaningful trade. Over time, I can by proving myself earn respect and admiration. That in turn results in further relationships.

Aspies don't need to "act NT" for friendships, respect, or romantic love. The "just be yourself" mantra holds true even for us. If you possess an idea, an ability, or productive work that is valuable to others, even in a romantic context, get those things "out there." You'll get noticed. Have the next move mentally planned. When a girl is impressed with you, how do you handle compliments and questions about your abilities and who you are? Are girls valuable to you? How do you communicate that value to them? How do you respond if that value is shared? It doesn't take much if you're ND. You have more to worry about dealing with social anxieties and communication skills than you do being worth something to someone. In my case, what I do in life speaks for me. One-liner conversations are pretty much automatic for me now. So I tend to hide behind the interest people have in themselves.

There's only one nut I can't seem to crack at this point, and that's people whose entire lives are governed by interest in other human beings. I can't get anywhere with these people. They never have anything to talk about. I think that's because they lose their identity in their work. These people are doctors, lawyers, politicians--and it's mostly lawyers and politicians I'm talking about here. Opinions of others IS their work. You can't get an idea of who these people really are without getting them started about other people they know. If you don't already know that history or the connections, or if you don't already have a thorough knowledge of mundane things like college football/basketball stats, you just get nothing but awkward silence. You could just fill the void by talking about yourself, but then you find out they really aren't all that interested anyway. They just ignore you and walk away. Or they just smile and nod just to be nice. If someone is selfish and not making much effort to cover it, and most people fit this description to some degree, they'll yak at you all day long. I can get along well with these people. Because then I can do all the smiling and nodding just to be nice and these people think I'm just wonderful.

It's authenticity people crave, which is not something one can always afford to give, especially if values are in conflict. If I'm with someone, dating or casual, and I'm falling into the "smile and nod" camp, I'll probably end up avoiding that person in the future because I don't believe in being fake. If I'm not allowed to be authentic, I don't want to inflict my presence on someone I don't value and who doesn't honestly value me.

To that end, it's much easier to find someone I can get along with than people I don't get along with. There's not always an obvious reason why I'd want to date a particular girl, but there might be a good reason TO date her. I'm not good at or all that interested in bowling, but I'll gladly go bowling if it means getting to spend time with the right girl and try to figure out what it is I find so fascinating about her. Because I feel the need to change for her? No. Because spending a little bit of time doing something she likes is worth it. I like it because I get to spend time with her. And there you have the exchange of value: time with someone to get to know her in exchange for an activity she enjoys.

On the other hand, there's the matter of religion. It's not like I never met a pagan girl I found interesting. Participating in a pagan ritual would offend me when it comes to my own spiritual beliefs and practices. A girl who insisted that I did would not be someone I'd go out with no matter how attracted to her I might be. In that case, conflicting values would preclude the possibility of any romantic relationship. It just wouldn't work out. But if her values did NOT create such a demand on me, a short-term relationship might be enjoyable. Moving towards a LTR, though, would be a whole different conversation.

It's the open recognition of value inherent to all individuals that makes it easy to get along with most people. The more people are together, the more likely they are to discover values in conflict. Serious relationships that are preceded by lengthy friendships are more likely to have discovered and dealt with potential conflict, and stronger friendships are likely the result of more shared values. I believe that gives a more objective meaning to attraction and ensures relational success in the long term.

Yes, there are commonality in ND and NT relationships, but those are not the ones you think. The extensive tit-for-tat (value, reward, earn and deserve) are exclusive to only NT human beings, and is not natural for NDs. It cannot be since NDs have so much trouble with this. They get excluded precisely because they don't know how it works. They get used for the same reason. Instead, it is mutual attachment that is the common feature of healthy relationships. When you claim you won't leave your wife it is because of your attachment to her. Whether you like it or not.

Attachment is also the reason why people with ND relationship preferences shouldn't date. When NDs date, their infatuation scores will dramatically decrease and as a consequence of that they won't build a healthy attachment. It's infatuation that builds strong attachments for NDs.

Natural ND relationships start with a crush, have a rather long phase of strong infatuation which builds a strong attachment. That's the only way NDs can build long lasting relationships that are not mere friendships or arranged marriages.

Another thing I don't think you realize is that it is attachment that creates altruism in a relationship (and especially in the ND variant). I mean, I'm not altruistic to just any girl. When I have a strong attachment to somebody I always think of their best and do whatever is necessary to keep us fed, living comfortable and whatever else is required. Because of that, I need to be careful about who I create strong attachments to, and so I cannot handle things like a girl not being serious and seeing other guys.

Since the natural ND relationship start with a crush being friends first doesn't work. It will always stay friendship (or NT style relationship). In fact, it is very rare for me to get a crush. It only happens once a decade or so, although I believe it can be triggered, but the workings of that is not known so it will happen rarely.

As you can perhaps imagine I find the idea of women being valuable or even attractive as completely irrelevant. There simply is no way I would pick a partner based on that.

EXCLUSIVE to ONLY NT’s? That’s absurd. You can’t speak for EVERY ND relationship. It’s logically possible for ND’s to engage in any number of relationship styles, including those practiced by NT’s.

Moreover, as I pointed out in my last post, it’s something resembling the NT model that seems to be most preferred. When you feed WP men fairy and unicorn mysticism about making googly eyes across the room and mind-rape, you are essentially telling them they cannot have an objectively real relationship. This is simply untrue because there ARE WP members who DO have tangible meat-space relationships. Telling them abysmal stories about how they can’t have that and have to resort to staring contests and mind-rape is pessimistic and unhelpful. Our struggle is with the autism spectrum and making ourselves clearly understood, not with self-delusion. Being fed lies about how we cannot hope to succeed boosts our self-esteem about as well now about as well as it did when bullies told us the same thing a little less nicely back in high school. Can aspies succeed at the kinds of relationships everyone else gets to enjoy? I believe we can. And given fhe success stories of those who refused to believe the lies inflicted by people like you and school bullies, I believe your premise to be DOA.


But then you do have ND’s who ARE successful, so this is mostly wrong. I can’t deny that we do have deficits and attainment may feel unnatural. But once again we’re drifting into mystical unicorns and fairies territory. I may be averse to cold, rainy weather. But isolating myself indoors does not magically change the weather. And just because typical relational styles make you uncomfortable doesn’t mean they can’t work for ND’s. It just means it doesn’t work for YOU.

I’m also not suggesting that everyone have the exact same relationship that I have. I’m not denying NTR exists and that they function on some level. You have some who are little more than roommates, but calling it a living, active relationship is comical. Typically what you have is a power struggle, assuming there’s a struggle where no one wants to be second place, in which one partner thrives by taking without offering any benefit to the giver, and another partner who will give and give until there’s nothing left. Altruism in practice usually runs a similar course of making demands and placing guilt when the giver is “give out.” Healthy relationships typically are trade-based on some level, even if the participants only pay lip service to self-hate.

Which reminds me...has your wife screamed at you today yet for no good reason?



The way you reference infatuation and attachment reeks of codependency. I’ve been in a relationship in which I felt I needed her for the very air I breathed, and she demanded it be that way. Getting away from her had to happen in stages. First, I called off the wedding. Next, I waited until we got through exams and the beginning of summer before I officially broke up with her. Third, and this took a long time...but I had to stop being friends with her and letting her talk me into having FWB sex with her. Feeling like you’re a slave to unhealthy attachments, infatuations, and codependency is not my idea of fun or a healthy relationship.


Sounds time-consuming and tiresome. Don’t misunderstand me...I believe in making effort and enjoying the results of hard work, even in dating and ongoing relationships. But I favor a more direct approach that yields objective results. Even rejections are steps on a statistical pathway to eventual success, something that can be enhanced and improved through the experiences one attains along the way.

Besides that, your argument is practically stillborn. That’s NOT the only way, and I can point to WP members who are experiencing ongoing success in the very approach to relationships you’re complaining about. You can’t speak for all of us, and you clearly have no idea what you’re talking about.


You’re not altruistic to just any girl. You realize that means you’re selfish, right? I can communicate with selfish people. Embrace being selfish and all that it means and you’ll do well. And that ESPECIALLY applies to relationships. You really wouldn’t have as many successful relationships if selfish people weren’t involved. It works because self-interest becomes a mutual driving force. Either two people are working towards the same goals, or they thrive on the individual product of the other. Either way you have trade in which both partners WIN.

If you are struggling with your relationships and would like to know more about how rational self-interest can work for you and help you achieve your relational goals, I’m always glad to help.



But you haven’t proven what a “natural” ND relationship IS or that it’s actually beneficial to ND’s. You haven’t established that a NT style relationship is necessarily a bad thing. And what exactly IS an NT relationship, anyway?

So you start with a crush, which only happens at best once a decade? How does this help ND’s who are tired of waiting and even afraid that a relationship may never happen? You’re suggesting something that seems to have little to no indication of ever producing objective results. That is not what ND’s seem to want.

I’m not going to lie say I have a way of making guarantees of any kind of system that would yield consistent results for everyone. I’m only suggesting an objective approach to attain objective results. I prefer playing a statistical game in which one has a high likelihood of ONE success in any given year. Someone with more experience might know how to “cheat” the system, which is fundamentally ALSO what PUA’s claim to accomplish, and see more frequent results. You may only be a couple of weeks into my recommended program and figure out your own ways of achieving success. An ND might initiate contact with friends, through your googly-eye tactic, cold approach (never really worked for me, but whatever), or any number of methods that works for the individual attempting them.

But the desired outcome is always the same: a gf or bf, right here, right now, pics or it never happened. I don’t believe your approach has any standing in objective reality and anyone actually trying to follow your suggestions may actually do themselves more harm than good.



If you don’t value women, why give advice to ND’s who do? I’m not apt to listen to a misogynist, and I hope more aspies will agree with me on this much if nothing else.

I don’t pretend to have every answer. I’m just concerned about objective reality. I’m optimistic that relationships are attainable for anyone, ND’s included, and I don’t think we have to change who we are to effect a positive, objective outcome.

I don't think there is a need to decide that your or my views are correct. They represent the extremes. Your view is basically a typical NT view of relationships. My view is based on traits I know are linked to being ND (note, linked, not determined), and my own experience of how they can be used in the relationship context.

ND guys (girls too, actually) will need to decide what they want to get out of their relationships, and then try to implement that in the best possible way. If they want a social trophy, or if they are comfortable with typical NT relationships they should pursue this, and then they can follow much of your advice. At least provided they don't have too much of the ND preferences. They also need to understand that if they cannot handle NT relationships naturally, they will need to learn all this NT-stuff as good as they can. but there is no guarantee they will ever be able to do that good enough to actually find a partner and get into a relationship.

The other alternative (that I advocate) is to ignore all the NT relationship stuff and act naturally. This approach has its own problems but also a lot of potentials. Still, I think you take my examples as too literal. You don't need to stare at a potential partner, but there is a considerable number of NDs involved in distance love interests. There are also a few NDs with imaginary partners, and people can move from this to distance love interests. I don't think the sequence of things is set in stone either. I mean, a woman with a mind-to-mind connection started out by hanging out with her partner, which then turned nonverbal. I think there is a lot of room for experimentation with ND relationship traits that could result in things that are easier to implement for the usual ND guy/girl. Still, if everybody believes they must do things the NT way, then nobody will do this experimentation.

Never said anything else. When I use ND in the relationship context, I mean people that have the ND relationship traits. That's not the same as having an ASD diagnosis, or even being ND in general. It's only a correlation.



I don't think you can conclude that. It's like having only one political party and banning everything else, claiming that an election is democratic and true of people's preferences. Most people that come here know nothing about ND relationships, and have been fed with the NT view of relationships by society. Thus, as long as they only have this information, they cannot make an informed choice.



I don't think our definitions of "objectively real" are the same.



Telling people to experiment with their natural preferences, and showing them what can be obtained is not unhelpful. I could claim that indoctrinating people about NT relationships & dating is unhelpful, and for some, it actually is because they will never master this well enough to get any benefit from their work.



The question is wrong. The issue is not if aspies can succeed with NT style relationships or not. I'm sure some can. The main issue is if they should try this path at all and if they do when it is time to abandon it.



This is just completely wrong, so I won't comment further on it. I just note that power struggles are inherently NT, and thus has no relevance whatsoever for ND relationships.



Never had any issue with infatuation or attachment. They are always positive for me. You might have a different experience, but that doesn't make people that thrive on infatuation or attachment unhealthy.



You misunderstand. I don't put value on people AT ALL, and I specifically don't use a woman's potential value as a cue to whether I'd be interested in a relationship with her or not. As I stated, a woman's "value" is completely irrelevant to me in every context, and specifically in the relationship context. Putting value on people is like putting a monetary tag on them, which is just horrible.

If there's no need, then why not present a moderate view? Why insist on your way as being correct?


What IS a uniquely ND preference? Or uniquely NT preference? What constitutes a NT or ND seems to be a moving target. I think it's more useful to think in terms of individuals as being individuals. Brain wiring is less of a concern. It helps to understand WHY we are different. But ND/NT differences need not be "us vs. them."


People should just act naturally anyway. The only problems you run into is behaviors may not be appropriate for interactions among certain individuals and may cause problems in communicating value. I've had to figure out some workarounds for this in my life. To give the shortest answer as I can about how I do this, it's basically the same defensive tactic I used in school: Stay in my corner, do whatever I want anyway, and let other people decide on their own if they want to be a part of what I'm doing or not.

Distance love and imaginary love have the disadvantage of being non-objective. Musicians and artists are expected to kinda live in their own heads, so I take no issue with that. I take no issue with momentary escape for the sake of allowing someone to better function in a working capacity, like watching TV, reading fiction, playing online RPG's, etc. I have no problem understanding that people have strictly online or LDR and that works for them. I think restricting yourself to distance relationships and imaginary relationships and online relationships as exclusive forms of relationships is a form of self-harm because you're denying yourself the benefit of an objective relationship and the tangible products thereof. In fact, you're spending time and effort on something with nothing real to show for it.

For some people, sure, I'll concede that much. For those who for whatever reason are perpetually unable to have an objective partner, imagination is all one has and might be all that's keeping him alive. That might be all you get. So if we're talking about people who are disabled to the point that they cannot possibly exist in a tangible relationship, imaginary, online, distance, fantasy relationships fill a void and a need. Indeed, I was impressed with how many disabled, retired, or sick (cancer, etc.) folks I found on SecondLife. My quasi-"mistress" was obviously considerably older than me though she insisted she wasn't that much older. There were so many fantastic elements to her narrative I found it difficult to believe much of what she said. But I went with it and didn't question it--she felt she needed me to believe her, so I gave her what she wanted. From what little I could piece together she was a very sick woman, and I strongly suspect she has died. If that's true, then perhaps I did well to give her some momentary peace before she passed, and I'm not ashamed of that.

But for many others, particularly on WP, who I'm sure are more than capable of taking control over their own lives, they can have more and, perhaps, they even deserve more. For those who are capable of having a real, meat-space gf and objective relationships, well...I think they should be encouraged, ESPECIALLY if that's what they want the most. One-handed typing on SL when they can do better is harmful, and I don't think it should be encouraged.

OK, whatever, but you still don’t speak for even everyone with ND traits. Correlations don’t mean much in objective terms.



More like having more than one political party and people STILL choose just the one. And “know nothing about ND relationships”? Give me a freakin’ break. I’ve had to live in my own body and in my own brain my entire life. I think I know a little something about what relationships are like for me, about the difficulties I’ve had and about the sort of women I typically gravitate towards. Don’t tell me ND people don’t know what they want.

I have no doubt some ND’s are cool with what you’re suggesting. Puzzledoll seems to share an exact identical view as yours. But you have at least two WP users who express their struggles with relationships with practically every post. And there are at least three men here who are in LTR’s and have been for some time. The exact nature of the relationship won’t be the stereotypical NT model because we ARE different. But something approaching that model or something resembling that model are what these guys have or want to pursue. The way you have worded this in practically every post you’ve made on the topic seems to demand that these guys give up what they have or what they want in favor of staring contests and mind-rape, or even imaginary partners and distance relationships. These relationships aren’t tangible. They’re not objective. So these guys on WP are going to have serious problems with what you’re telling them they should do and how they feel. I maintain that WP men already know how they feel and don’t need someone to talk down to them about what a relationship for ND folks ought to be.



“Objective” means anything that has observable, measurable, physical form. Love as a feeling isn’t objective, which is why I don’t use “love” in an emotional sense. What someone DOES for someone as an outpouring for how they feel about them, however, IS tangible. Gifts, flowers, dates, etc. ARE observable and measurable. So love as an action IS observable and measurable. Therefore, love is objective.

Staring contests aren’t objective beyond being staring contests. Mind-rape, likewise, isn’t objective.

A warm body sitting across from you at dinner is objective. A potential catfish you correspond with via social media or email is not. A warm body in your bed is objective. Some girl you’re one-handed chatting with who might not even BE a girl is not. A girl you see every weekend and stay in contact with throughout the week is objective. A girl who lives 1,500 miles away who says she loves you and promises to be true to you when, for all you really know, she’s having sex with another man every chance she gets is not. Saying you love someone isn’t objective. Actual showing someone you love them IS.

I believe that’s what many of these guys on here want. You’ve essentially told them they cannot have those things because only NT get that. You are wrong.




But you’re not telling people to experiment. You’re telling people that they cannot have certain kinds of relationships purely on the basis of a diagnosis or possessing certain traits. Sure, people should experiment and find what works best for them. That’s objective. But you’ve essentially said ND’s cannot have what they want. I think you’re telling lies.


The question isn’t wrong. The issue is not if aspies can succeed with NT style relationships. The issue is whether can succeed with relationships. Period. And for the ones I’m talking about, something resembling NT relationships is how they define relationships. I don’t discourage experimentation and finding out better ways of going about this. All I care about is whether the results are objective, tangible, and REAL. I’ve suggested a means of getting a gf, and I haven’t had many takers on that. And that’s fine. Part of the issue is a lack of patience or willingness to make the effort…and it IS long, tedious, hard work. But what do you want? Do you want a gf or not? And it pretty much amounts to wanting a gf but not valuing girls enough to put forth the effort. I would tell men to be honest with themselves and put their efforts into something they can control that is more worthwhile. I would tell men like that they are not being honest with themselves and not living consistently with their values. They say they want a gf, but only because they see that as something they were always taught they were supposed to have, not because there are REASONS why someone may, and just as importantly, MAY NOT want that for themselves. I know firsthand how harmful having a gf can be, and even how harmful SEXUAL relationships can be. I’ve never indicated what shortcuts there might be to my dating plan simply because I have no idea what those shortcuts are or where they might be found. But I can tell you that once you figure out relational patterns and begin to understand what it is the opposite sex wants, you’re on the verge of finding shortcuts and biasing the odds in your favor. And that does take a little experimentation along the way. But if you’re completely in the dark, that’s ok, too, and sometimes it’s easier throwing darts blindfolded for a while until you hit something. That at least has a stochastic outcome. I like my method because, objectively speaking, it works. Anything more efficient with a higher probability of an objective yield? Heck yeah…go for it. Whatever allows you to WIN, I say go for it.

But that’s up to the individual to decide. I pursued relationships the way I did in part because I knew I could. It took me too long to figure out which ones were beneficial and which ones weren’t. I’m not going to sit here behind my laptop and pontificate to WP members what they can/can’t do, or what they should/shouldn’t do. They are more than capable of deciding whether they think I’m right or wrong and figuring out what the best fit is for them. I don’t believe mystical fairies-and-unicorn magic is what they’re going for.




What??? And ND’s don’t have power struggles, too?


Oh, sure… My ex seemed to rather enjoy screaming at me every chance she got over every little thing she thought I did wrong. She seemed to thrive on making me feel guilty for having to spend several hours every night away from her practicing clarinet for ensembles, private lessons, and degree recitals. I’m sure it’s perfectly healthy…



Ok, and how is that any better than being a misogynist??? I mean, that's precisely the problem. You hate other people. Probably hate yourself, too. If you don’t value people, you have no business telling them how they should live and form relationships. You certainly have no credibility dictating to them what kind of relationships they ought to engage in.


So you think it’s ok to beat your wife, or you find it perfectly acceptable for her to scream at you for no apparent good reason; or if she’s violent towards you, that’s ok, right? Because people abusing each other isn’t nearly as horrible as believing someone is valuable, right?

Correct is the wrong word. I'd use natural instead. Sometimes what is natural might not be correct, or cannot be pursued for whatever reason.

To answer why I think the traits I usually take up are NATURAL ND traits, that's because I've researched them with Aspie Quiz, and sometimes even published preprints where the traits are analyzed scientifically. Only using my own experiences without checking them in the ND group would be useless, so all traits I talk about are linked to neurodiversity (and ASD) using large populations (often several 1000).



That's an objective issue in my research. An ND preference is a trait or behavior that is statistically linked to being ND. An NT preference is a trait or behavior that is statistically linked to being NT. The issue if something that has different scores between ND and NT populations is an ND preference or NT preference is resolved by looking at its function and how it links to other traits.

Asexuality is a useful example of how complex this can be. Asexuality is a lot more common in NDs than NTs, but it is an NT trait related to NT relationships. Asexuality cannot be adaptive, and so is not a natural trait or behavior. Instead, disgust for sexual intercourse, which is strongly linked to asexuality, provides a cue. In fact, the background is that regular sexual intercourse is a bonding behavior for NTs, and so is an NT preference. Asexuality then is a disgust reaction to this NT behavior which results in the individual (often a woman) selecting to identify as asexual to avoid having to participate (or with some other gender identity, or lesbian, which works too).



It's not a moving target, and saying we should focus on the individual is just an excuse to discard the variability and steer everybody into the same dating model.



Sounds very ND too me, and indicates you really don't have you value-system naturally. I suspect you too have learned the value system of NTs.



I'm not objecting to your complaint that nothing tangible will come out of it. That's a real risk. However, unlike you, I think it's possible to move from this "dimension" to a real objective relationship. That's where experimentation and people's experiences come in. There is no known "solution" for how this can be done, but if the traits are part of a natural courtship procedure, there simply has to be a way to at least reproduction. So, I'll just assume it is possible instead of giving up on it.



No objection to that.

They certainly know what kind of preferences they have (if they didn't, I wouldn't be able to research it). However, most people believe these preferences are dysfunctions, and not adaptive behavior, which tends to lead them on the wrong track for how they should handle it. That's how they end up trying to be NT, doing mass-dating and all that strange stuff that often lead nowhere. After having been rejected basically every time they asked some stranger woman out, their self-esteem is now at rock bottom, and so we see them complaining here about their single status and never being able to get a gf. You should note that these guys are not the ones that lived in harmony with their preferences. It's the ones that uncritically bought the dating model and now have a chattered self-esteem.



It's still a bit inconsistent. I mean, my love story is objective given your definition. We are close to each other several hours per day, including weekends, which makes it objective.



Well, life is sometimes a lot more complicated than our simple models. Take your model of how NDs should get into relationships as an example. So, an ND guy learns everything about dating, works on his "blockings" for approaching and talking to (even asking out) stranger girls. He eventually succeeds in getting some dates, and possibly, some of those dates lead to relationships. He ends up married to an NT. The mass-dating model has succeeded, right? I'd say we don't know that. Perhaps some years later his NT wife comes in here and complains about her hopeless aspie partner, and how much she wants to dump him (we've had a lot of those, so not unrealistic at all).

I'm not really against people learning how to get along with NTs, and even dating and things. What I'm against is to uncritically accept the ND relationship traits as dysfunctions that need to be fought. People can work with (instead of against) their natural preferences. It's called being natural. NDs can train their ability to identify other NDs (without resorting to asking for diagnosis). One of the best ways to train this is with the eye-contact game, especially since you can do it with any random stranger. So, perhaps when you master this, you can stop asking NTs for a date, and focus more effort on compatible people so you don't end up with some NT wife complaining on WP. You could also skip dating completely, and look for compatible women in various activities, even outdoors. Alternatively, an ND guy might happen to stumble upon a girl he fancies through the eye-contact game, and so play by the ND courtship behavior instead.

I think NDs need more alternatives, and shouldn't be hooked up on simplistic models that often doesn't work. Especially since many NDs will tend to overdo these kinds of things.



I'm fine on my own, but having a love interest is nice.



That's not useful. There is no general pattern of what the opposite sex wants. It is very different based on neurotype. So, this is a very dangerous generalization to make. It will basically mean you assume that everybody of the opposite sex has NT preferences, since this is what most people have. That's why so many ND guys here make general complains about girls when they actually mean NT girls. They have no idea that there are girls out there with other preferences that are more wanted by them, and so they give up or adapt.

So, no, shortcuts cannot be found this way. Shortcuts are dependent on having a functional ND radar, and not assuming that everybody of the opposite sex has some predefined properties you have to adapt to. If I know a girl is ND (through the ND radar), then I can decide to take things more the ND way since she is likely to respond more positively to that. Same if you detect somebody is not ND, and you still are interested, you could ask her out or something because that would be more likely to work.

I think this also relates to many of the regular complainers claiming that there are no ND girls. That's because they have used NT models for relationships, and many ND girls simply are not part of dating. I mean, I have a daughter in her mid-20s myself, and she is very fed-up with every guy going on about sex all the time. She is not dating. She has a few favorite guys since a long time ago (especially one). You cannot hope to hook up with her through any type of dating. Add that many ND women identify as asexual, non-standard gender identity or lesbian. Many of these ND women are NOT unavailable for relationships. They are only unavailable through dating. Besides, the ND women that actually participate in dating are more likely to pick NT men since they generally are more competent at dating.



Wrong. I don't hate people and I don't hate myself. I have an optimistic and positive view of life. Still, I don't put value on people.

You’re the one who used the word. So you’re changing your position that it’s not a matter of being “correct,” but rather “natural.”

If it’s about what’s natural, the natural tendency towards healthy relationships is transactional.
I have what she needs. She has what I need. The ability to fulfill needs and desires makes relationships among individuals attractive. That’s perfectly natural and beneficial to all involved.



But you still haven’t established that people with ND TRAITS can ONLY benefit THIS way or THAT way. And that’s what you’ve said. First you said it was ND’s can ONLY have THIS kind of relationship. Now you’re generalizing it further to apply to people with ND TRAITS? Well, heck, even NT’s show ND TRAITS. You’re not making much sense.


Right, and it doesn’t seem to make that much difference.


This is COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT. This thread has never been about asexuals. It’s about men who WANT objective relationships and are struggling with having them. They’re not worried about asexuality or LGBTQ+++ issues. And I’ve always said that gender and non-cis-hetero issues are beyond my scope. If that’s what you’re talking about, then that needs to be addressed directly with those who ARE concerned with it. I just have no interest in it. But if we’re talking what some call heteronormative relationships, then I’m open for business. If that’s what these guys want, then I feel like that’s the discussion we need to have. If I thought it were otherwise, I wouldn’t even be on thread.


Why not? Is that what they want? Yes? Then why the freak not? If they want a different model, that’s up to them. Like I said, that’s beyond my area of interest. But if they want a heterosexual relationship, if men are interested in girls or women interested in men, what’s so bad about telling them they can have that if they want it?

The only condition is that the potential partner wants them back. That’s really all it is, and no different whatsoever as what you’re suggesting. The problem I have with your approach is an emphasis on non-objective results. You’re ok with people just saying they have a gf when they’ve never actually been anywhere near the gf. I don’t believe that’s really what these guys are talking about when they say they want a gf. It’s detached from objective reality, and I think they have a big problem with that. I’d enjoy hearing what these guys have to say should they choose to weigh in, but that’s looking less and less likely with every post.


Because I’ve learned to see the value of people in the process of getting what I want. I can achieve a lot on my own. I’m perfectly content with that. But as I’ve gotten older and gotten better at what I do, I’ve found that I benefit MORE when people come alongside me and help. I think it’s morally wrong to accept their help without rewarding them for their support.

No, I don’t think it’s natural to ND’s. Never said it was. In fact, I’ve outright said the opposite. ND’s have a tendency towards introspection and isolation. We tend to view things as black/white and approach things with a sense of logic that is more/less limited. An ND who is gifted at making model airplanes and even prototyping new, potentially functional, futuristic airplane designs isn’t going to see the point of paying other people to come in and make airplanes with him. An NT with the same obsession is going to look at his airplane models and say, “hey, what if I made it BIGGER? Hey, what if actual people could fly it? Hey, I sold a passenger plane—what if I could hire someone to make more of them? Hey, I’m making a lot of money making and selling airplanes—can I make them BIGGER? Hey, I’m making more, BIGGER airplanes—I need more people!! !” The ND person will simply ask “Why do I need people?” and maybe 3D print a new drone design that nobody else will ever hear about.

I’ve grown past that and I’ve learned things like values over time from personal experience as well as from reading non-fiction. For me, it’s not about being natural as it is achieving something. And I’ve noticed the less I’m concerned about trying something that’s unnatural to me for the sake of fitting in and meeting the demands of others and just being myself, the more people seem to want to get involved in what I’m doing.

ND’s should, therefore, be more concerned with their own value and let everything else take care of itself. They should invent and build bigger airplanes. They should take risks and be entrepreneurial. It brings them the most benefit. And even better if they don’t have to actually change themselves to bring this into reality. Making themselves AWARE of their own value and the potential value of others actually makes things easier in the long run. It can become natural with time and as it becomes habit. The only thing you really have to worry about is WHY you’re doing something. Making money is a darn good reason because it’s objective—it’s about value, it’s about freedom, and it allows you to just keep doing MORE of what you enjoy doing anyway. No one, especially not ND’s, should be ashamed of achievement.




A “real risk”? I’d say it’s a near-certainty.





They end up “trying to be NT” because they are pressured to be something they’re not or are unaware of their own real value. I’ve made that mistake with my own children before. It’s easy to do. But one need not keep making the same mistake.

Preferences are values. I agree, they’re not living lives consistent with their values. They need to be honest with themselves about that and unashamed of the truth. If there is a reason you are incapable of having a mate, which I see as grossly unlikely (hello Hawking), or a reason you are incapable of functioning in a LTR, don’t kill yourself trying to be in one. Admit that relationships aren’t worth it for you to go to the trouble and focus on things that ARE objectively fulfilling, i.e. what you CAN do.

But if you ARE capable, if you do have the right attitude, then no amount of ability or disability is going to stop you. You can do whatever you want.

What hurts more than anything else is one’s lack of value for himself. Like I keep repeating, lack of value for yourself indicates lack of value for anyone else (because if you don’t love yourself, you have no use for anyone else. Therefore, you’re not going to love anyone else. Because you’ve indicted yourself as worthless, there’s no worth for anyone else to perceive in you). If you HONESTLY believe you are worthy, you will behave accordingly. That will have a ripple effect throughout all your relationships. If certain types of relationships are beyond your ability (again, I have doubts as to whether they actually would be), then they’re not worth working towards. It’s not that the supermodel is above you and unreachable. She IS attainable with the right amount of work and persistence. By NOT working and not achieving, however, you communicate that the supermodel is actually BENEATH you and not worthy of your effort at all.

This is, in my view, perfectly acceptable. ND’s who can grasp this concept are going to have a much easier time being themselves and succeeding at relationships IF they decide such a relationship is not beneath them.

The opposite is utter misery. The opposite is what I frequently see with certain men on WP. They see the woman, ANY woman, as above them and unachievable. The disability creates a perceived lower status, which in turn causes these men to give up because their entire identity is built around what these higher-class, higher-ability, higher-value women think about them.

Self-interest seems to be more “natural” for ND’s than NT’s, particularly those on the autistic spectrum. I’ve often wondered, in spite of my own problems with the philosophy, why more aspies don’t embrace Objectivism. My guess is that it’s because disabled people are automatically assumed not to be self-sufficient. “Classic” objectivists don’t regularly include disability or ND’s in the discussion, so the assumption is we have no value under their worldview. The fact we’re not mention merely reflects the fact we’re not mentioned. There’s nothing more to it than that. It’s really simple.

In Atlas Shrugged, Reardon doesn’t abandon his family because of age, status, or ability. He abandons them because they acted entitled to his wealth, made demands, and returned abuse for his generosity when gratitude was deserved. It was only guilt that tied him to his wife, mother, and brother.

When people are disabled and they’re taught that all they have to look forward to is the unearned grace of others to survive, it’s an insult to disabled people. When we buy into that, we buy into the misery of others at the expense of our own dreams and expectations. It “looks good” because it’s just easier to blame everyone else when it’s really the people who are taking advantage of us and profiting on our misery who are telling us that successful people are our enemies. We can’t achieve, so THOSE guys MUST have cheated somehow. I also believe that to be a lie, and I don’t take advice from parasites and looters.

That’s where we run into trouble with relationships because it’s all the same kinds of lies. Nobody OWES us a relationship of any kind. Women are not OBLIGATED to lay down their lives and be our gf’s and wives just because we “can’t help it.” It seems nice, but that’s not how free society works. However, if you are objectively a “nice guy,” a woman isn’t going to care that you’re receiving welfare benefits or are incapable of working. They’re going to see value. You only might run into trouble if a woman values something else, most likely your freedom. If a woman says you have to own a house or a car or have a high-paying job, well—you have to respect that. That’s within her rights to value those things and want those things. But perhaps you’ll gravitate towards a woman, and she’ll gravitate towards you, who values something else but for no other reason she just finds you interesting. A “woe is me” attitude is not going to communicate that value. The least you can do is believe in yourself and act on it.

Never, ever punish someone for being nice to you.


Fine. So why tell other ND’s to pursue harmful non-objective, unicorn-and-fairy, mystical relationships in which they never even see each other? A guy flirts with some other dude online who’s just doing it for the lulz, but HE thinks he actually has a gf. That’s messed up. Objective relationship or gtfo.


The simplest models often do work the best for everyone. I’m not about complicating things. You have what I need for a relationship, I have what you need for a relationship; let’s do this. Easy. Simple. Get married, buy the house, have some babies. It worked plenty fine for me.

No, the biggest problem is that of the NT wife who comes in complaining. Yes, we’ve all observed this and know it to be true. It has nothing to do with what you’re suggesting. It means that people sign up for something they don’t really understand.

A lot of that is non-objective and emotional. Like I keep saying, it’s ok to be emotionally involved. You SHOULD be. The problem is that the NT’s that have come through WP initiated those relationships purely on emotion to begin with. They didn’t understand fully what they were getting into and feel like they had the rug pulled out from underneath them. Forget the rug…they had the whole floor pulled out. That’s their own fault. And I blame also those who lie to ND’s and cause them to believe things that aren’t true—for instance, and most relevant, what these kinds of relationships are ACTUALLY worth. They don’t ask WHY they should be in a relationship. GrandInquisitor has a thread about WHY he wants to be in a relationship. I may not agree with every point he makes as to whether that’s a good thing, but it shows he’s making a conscious effort at honesty. ND’s need to be encouraged to be honest. If you’re just looking for a new mommy, at least have the guts to say you need constant care. Being with me requires sex every night 3 out of 4 weeks a month. Being with me means I require 3 hours of alone-time every night. Being with me means video games, and you’re welcome to join me if you like. Being with me means______. This is how I intend to spend the rest of my life. Do you value me enough to take me and everything that comes with me? Because this is the life you’re signing up for. Don’t be ashamed to leave me, because I’m not. If you are capable of being happy with all of this, I’m not pushing you away. I just don’t want you with me and 6 months from now have second thoughts, or 3 kids later and decide you’re done. Everyone MUST value each other enough to be completely transparent and honest. ND relationships, NT relationships, combo ND/NT relationships…doesn’t matter. Without a full understanding of this, relationships die.


Likewise, but you and I both have that part of our lives settled. And I’m up front about speaking purely in hypotheticals. I’m not looking, and no ND guy (or NT guy) on WP or anywhere has need of fear that I’m moving in on his “territory.” Still…the question remains for other guys, and there are a small handful in particular I’m referring to, WHAT DO YOU WANT? If it’s an imaginary girl, a virtual girl (like SL, or a computer bot, or whatever), or a distance girl, you can get that. But is that really what these guys are talking about? It looks to me their goals are objective, so part of my job in these interactions is see that men have an understanding of how to find or create some pathway to having an objective relationship.


I’ve found it incredibly useful, actually. I stumbled upon what PUA’s refer to as negging. I never read the literature, didn’t know it was a thing or even had a name. I just noticed that all relationships have strengths and weaknesses, and some relationships had greater weaknesses than strengths. This is particularly true of abusive relationships. It then becomes a matter of who the stronger man is and how you judge strength. I “stole” a gf out of an abusive relationship. Not because I’m big, bad, muscular and scary. But because I called an abusive man’s bluff who could have killed me with nothing more than his thumb. Ok, I’m exaggerating, but this was a strong, violent, scary dude who really would have killed me. My tactic was simple: I sat back in my seat and let him do his big scary tough routine. I only walked away because his gf was freaking out and insisted she’d be ok with him if I left. And because he exposed himself as a dangerous @$$hole, she dumped him for good and we’ve been together ever since.

It’s not the first time I pulled a trick on a similar principle. I was in a bad place relationally, low self-esteem, lost my fiancée, lost a long-time crush soon after that—I mean, everything in my life seemed to be falling apart. Found this really attractive, freshman saxophone player. She expressed some negativity towards her bf at the time. I ended up kissing her. We never had sex, which was too bad, but it was fun while it lasted. Later on in grad school, I did end up in bed with an engaged woman. Same thing. Yeah, it’s a dirty trick, and it’s EXTREMELY effective.

The point I’m trying to make isn’t that you should use PUA tricks and use women. My point is yes, there ARE shortcuts for having emotional or physical encounters. Those very things can ALSO open the doors to relationships. If it hadn’t happened with my wife, I probably wouldn’t be married to her.


Yeah…see above response.

This raises another issue: What is the REAL virtue of restricting one’s relationships to ONLY ND women? First, if there are equal numbers of ND women to ND men, those women aren’t exactly forthcoming. This is quite often a complaint on WP. Second, if there WERE, are these women ND men would actually be interested in? I’ve put ND men and women on WP in contact with each other before. Nothing happened. I’d like to ask why that is, but I can’t seem to work up the courage to do it, and maybe it’s better left as none of my business. And if we can’t find these women, and many of THEM aren’t down with dudes anyway…then what’s the point?

That’s also, objective, btw. I mean, this plays out way too many times than I think you care to acknowledge. It looks to me as though the best compatibility isn’t between ND’s, but rather between ND and NT pairings. I’m not advocating that ND’s should ONLY pair with NT’s. But I’m not advocating the other way, either.

The simplest terms I can put it in is people who love each other should be together. ND/NT has nothing to do with it.



OK, I’m gonna have to put this one up on the Instant Replay:

[Cue bumper music for AngelRho’s Instant Replay Of The Day][/bumper]



And then…


You have no meaning, no value for people, yet you still claim to be optimistic and positive? You ARE a self-hater with a heavy case of doublethink. Room 101 obviously worked for you.