There are four choices regarding intimate relationships
1. Have none.
2. Have one that lasts a lifetime.
3. Have several (but be selective)
4. Have several indiscriminately.
The difference between number 3 and 4 is similar as to why Epicureans could expect to live longer than Hedonists.
Number 2 seems out of reach (given a 50% divorce rate). In a consumer society one often takes in a view of life that is oriented towards taking what pleasures one can find. This self orientation is destructive to relationships and eventually bursts the bubble of romantic and sexual entanglements. This ends up creating a series of sequential relationship pursuits with none ultimately able to fill the insatiable hunger of selfishness.
Many people end up in situation number one because they are unable to find anyone with whom they would have a shot at making number 2 work. It is risky to trust someone with your life and have them dump you so that you end up in number 3 or 4.
The key to making number 2 work is the selflessness of love. Most people think that love is the combination of the emotional sensations of affection, romance, desire, expectation, and even lust. While these sensations are powerful, it can be harmful to confuse them with the actual selflessness that leads a person to think first of the good of another.
For number 2 to work, both people in the relationship have to be willing to subordinate their own interests for that of the other. This usually only occurs when their are adverse circumstances such as survival, or when both people follow a particular faith in which this subordination is expected.
Buddhism identifies the destructive elements of desire. However, their remedy is to attempt to eliminate it. Christianity offers the means to transform selfishness, but so few find this that it seems only metaphorical. Islam, like some of the more legalistic forms of Christianity, seems to offer a life that is free from the more destructive forms of selfishness. However, like Stoicism, the grim determination to be virtuous often fails in the face of human nature.
Peter describes that those who are called to follow God will seem odd to those who follow the course of the world.
For the time past of our life may suffice us to have wrought the will of the Gentiles, when we walked in lasciviousness, lusts, excess of wine, revellings, banquetings, and abominable idolatries: Wherein they think it strange that ye run not with them to the same excess of riot, speaking evil of you: - 1 Peter 4:3-4
It seems ironic that in a culture that declares so much advocacy for “tolerance” so little is tolerated. It is in the nature of people to resent those who are different.
But whereunto shall I liken this generation? It is like unto children sitting in the markets, and calling unto their fellows, And saying, We have piped unto you, and ye have not danced; we have mourned unto you, and ye have not lamented. - Matthew 11:16-17
I know many people reflexively hate any mention of the bible. However, it seems a good resource since it so often encapsulates and describes that which is deficient in all of us.
Many people can accommodate relationships that need to be exchanged periodically. Others settle into a relationship that while not satisfying at least provides some continuity (like in the song, “Dangling Conversation”).
Aspergers people tend to have a stronger internal thought process and as a result may find it more difficult to form relationships of any kind. This is made more difficult if the general trend of society is towards greater thoughtlessness.
One generally needs to weigh the value of the comments of others. People can say things that are wrong, thoughtless, cruel, and hurtful. It is when we give credence to what is said that we risk letting such foolishness hurt us.
.