Am I the only man that is focused mainly on emotional aspect

Post Reply New Topic

First of all, as a Christian, I don't believe in sex before marriage. However, this is besides the point. I only became Christian at 22 (right now I am 29) but, even back at the atheist days, I weren't looking for sex either. Why? Because I was focused on my studies and I viewed both physical "and" emotional aspects of relationships as a disraction from my studies. Yes, I had some sexual fantasies and wet dreams, but that pretty much ended on that. Then, at the age of 21 -- when I was still an atheist -- I was hurt emotionally (ironically, at Clare Sainsbury's mailing list for aspies) so I wanted to find a relationship in order to make up for emotional hurt. Notice how it was still a year "before" my conversion, yet I wasn't looking for sex either: I was obsessed about my emotional hurt that just occurred. Thats when I learned that I seem unlikable, and that made me obsess about validation all the more. Then, at the age of 22, I became Christian, so from that point onward I was opposed to sex. But that was pretty much irrelevant to the aspect of relationships I been obsessing over. I continued to obsess over the emotional aspects just like I was back when I was atheist, and the fact that I wasn't allowed sex was pretty much irrelevant to that obsession.

Now, if you follow me so far, you are going to say "well, you are an aspie, so probably as an aspie you dislike touch or something". No thats not true either: I already told you I had wet dreams (see the paragraph above). And I don't have the issues with touch either. When I had girlfriends, and they touched me, I enjoyed it (even though I am opposed to sex, I am not opposed to cuddling -- well, yes, its sinful too, but I am okay to compromise this far, and I did). The point I am trying to make is that its not something worth obsessing over. So no, I don't fit into a stereotype of NT male who is obsessed about sex, nor do I fit into a stereotype of an aspie who is opposed to sex for sensory reasons. I have a perfectly healthy perspective: if I didn't have my religious beliefs I "would" enjoy sex (well, I never had one, but I can still say I would enjoy it if I did) yet, at the same time, I would never obsess over sex (regardless of my religious beliefs or lack thereof).

And this brings me to the point of the thread. The fact that "others" aren't that way, pretty much ruined things for me. The men that obsess over sex is what makes women assume that my "crisis" is physical rather than emotional, so I receive no support for my emotional needs. And the fact that some aspies are averted to physical touch just puts another reason on the list of why women shouldn't date me -- even though unlike those other aspies I don't have the aversion to touch.

And quite frankly I don't understand why men are obsessed about sex anyway. Sex is just a physical experience. If you don't get sex, just find some other source of physical experience: go to the beach, or have an ice cream, or just masturbate for crying out loud. But emotional aspects of relationships is what is trully irreplaceable. If I feel invalidated due to the fact that nobody dates me, there is nothing I can possibly do to make myself feel validated in this way. Do you see my point? So my VERY REAL needs of being validated aren't even acknowledged because those other men have some phony need of this physical experience. I think the men that just want physical experience they have a perfect life with no other problems what so ever. Why else would you focus on something as lame as that?! But I have a really serious problem with my emotional needs not being met -- that is being totally invalidated thanks to those jerks.

There is something called Asexuality where people simply do not experience sexual attraction & are not very focused on having sex. Like autism asexuality is a spectrum. Some dislike sex or the idea of it or simply have no interest in it & some may even have no sex drive while others may like sex OK & be open to it but have no interest in sex outside of a strong romantic connection. The ladder is called Demisexual. Autistics tend to be on more of the extreme ends of the sexuality spectrum compared to NTs. More autistics are asexual & hypersexual than the general population of NTs. I'm sorta on the demisexual spectrum. I like sex OK & I used to look at porn aLOT but I never had much interest in the idea of me actually having sex outside of a serious romantic relationship; it didn't have to be marriage but at least us being aa strong couple. I wanted to have sex when I was a teen but that was mostly cuz of curiosity & peer pressure. I never done sexual stuff with anyone outside of cyber till I got in my current relationship & I was about 30.

Yes, next.

Well, IF it wasn't for my religion, then I would enjoy sex outside of relationship. BUT I wouldn't be so upset about being deprived of it, and certainly won't go out of my way to write several lengthy forum posts whining about not having it -- the way I do regarding the lack of emotional connection. So emotional connection is more important than sex, thats what I am saying.

Well I think that for hyper-sexual men sex is not really a choice but an itch that must be scratched. It's a physiological matter. I know men who are happily married with a healthy sex relationship in their marriage but still need more, and their extra-marital activities are purely sexual on their part. They separate sex and emotion completely. Faith may promote abstinence, but you only need to look at religious institutions of all faiths to see the prevalence of pedophilia, rape and abuse.
I admire men who can place faith and their moral beliefs above carnal desire, but for the hypersexual it may prove to be like keeping a tiger in a paper cage.

Have to disagree with this part, but in what I hope is a positive and encouraging way: when you're with the right person, sex is an indescribably profoundly spiritual and emotional and healing and affirming experience, and the physical aspect of it is merely the channel by which all the other aspects are achieved. So I fully share the premise that the emotional aspect of a relationship is the more fundamental, but the emotionality and the sexuality are interconnected. People who have not noticed that can often be heard saying sex is overrated. They are incorrect!

The beach or the ice cream or the masturbation will give you a dopamine hit or an endorphin hit or an adrenaline hit, or some combination of those things, which is fine, but not even masturbating on a beach while eating an ice cream would get you within a zillion miles of sex with someone you have a profound emotional connection with.

And even if that is nothing more than an illusion created by evolution, the emotional and spiritual "high" are still wonderful. It's only when you try to get out of bed afterwards that you remember you even have a physical body, which is probably aching and in drastic need of a wash. The good mood after masturbation wears off within minutes. The good mood after sex with an emotional partner lasts days or weeks, and can be life-changing.

Sorry, Raphael F, you're actually making very good points, but that's quite an image!

If what you said was true, how would it coexist with the fact that men are more sex-oriented and women are more emotion-oriented? And especially what about the men that just use women for sex and then dump them?

In any case, even if sex was as profound as you described, the point of this thread stands. The need of someone who starves to have some basic food is more important than the need of someone who is middle class to live in kings castle. I feel like my whole sense of self worth is being ruined by not having basic female attention -- and this is far more damaging than some guy's lack of sex.

Why, thank you!

To return to QFT's original question: No you aren't the only man who regards the emotional aspect as the chief one. Women tend to tell me I'm very feminine, and I used to teach in girls' schools because teenage girls made far more sense to me than teenage boys, and as it happens my astrological star chart says I'm basically female (obviously my doctor would confirm I'm a male). I'm perfectly comfortable in a male body (fortunately), but I suggest not all women are stereotypically female in their outlook and not all men are stereotypically male in theirs.

Clearly the men who use women and dump them, as you describe, are more typical males (unless maybe they're SO emotional that they're frightened of getting too attached, but this would be in a minority of such cases I guess).

I've known women who were more sex-oriented than you appear to assume, and I've known men such as you and me for whom the emotional aspect is ultimately the main one. I can't get sexually aroused unless I'm sure there's an emotional connection, and alone I can't fantasize unless the fantasy takes it as read that an emotional connection subsists (I think terms such as "demisexual" and "demiromantic" may apply in my case). Sex drive varies greatly from individual to individual, too, so it isn't solely a question of how masculine or feminine someone's personality happens to be, or how closely someone associates sexuality with emotionality.

I believe quite a lot of women LIKE a man to be emotional: you may have a U.S.P. there, if you can use it. Though there are also women who prefer their men to be more stereotypically macho and not too emotional.

My self-worth has also been demolished by chronic lack of the kind of basic attention you crave. I didn't mean to sound disrespectful of the point you were raising. Slowly and painfully and reluctantly, I have learned to accept that in my own case social ineptitude is likely to impose emotional solitude, but I haven't totally given up hope, and if you have a better set of social skills than me then your chances may well be far higher.

The right therapist might be of some help in the self-esteem department, but that may not be a route you wish to go down, and alas not every therapist is as good as one would prefer to believe.

By using the word "typical" you just confirm the point I am trying to make. Typical means that more than 50% of men do the above behavior. Now doesn't it seem ridiculous that this takes place? Taking emotional needs aside, using+dumping someone is hurtful to the other person. So don't you find it frustrating that more than half of men think its okay to hurt women just for their own entertainment? How would you feel if majority of mankind were stealing from the stores on the regular basis and thinking its okay? Well, using and dumping a girl is a lot worse than stealing from the store: at least when you steal from the store you don't hurt anyone but when you use+dump a girl you do.

And what makes it especially frustrating is that I am the one who has to pay for it. Three years ago there was a girl who lost interest in me because I talked about ex-s too much. When I tried to persuade her to give me another chance she came up with another reason: most men dump her so she can't trust me that easily. But then the other thing that she mentioned is that clinginess pushes her away. And then I said the reason I am clingy is that I am insecure, to which she said "I understand insecurity, I am insecure too, but the experience shows that men who are insecure will dump their girlfriend to look for happiness elsewhere". To me that point makes absolutely no sense. Being insecure is the reason to do diametrically opposite to what she described: cling to the woman I finally find and avoid dumping her at all costs. Yes clinginess is a turnoff but thats a different matter -- the point is that, contrary to what she said, I wouldn't dump anyone; why can't this FACT get acknowledged?! So did she really mean by the word "insecure" the same thing I would mean, or did she mean some super-shallow version of it that men can feel -- since men are incapable of feeling the real insecurity? So even though she seemingly acknowledged my insecurity, she actually invalidated it by suggesting that I would do something that outright contradicts the type of insecurity I claim to feel.

You aren't the only man focused on emotional connection. The problem is that young women don't know what they want either. All the "reasons" your last girlfriend gave you for breaking up are just rhetorical. Whatever it was, it didn't click for her.

There are still Christian women around who are virgins and want to marry a virgin. Have you tried any church based groups, or Christian dating sites? Many women like to be listened to, but in general, they don't want to listen to you. This may be a problem for you if you want to express your emotions and she isn't interested. You don't want to find yourself with someone who is trying to rescue you, which is how you will be perceived, if you present as insecure and needy. It may take a while to find the right one for you. I believe the Supremes said "You can't hurry love." Before your time, I know.

You probably need to fix the inner part of you that feels you must have validation in a loving relationship in order to be whole. Even the best of loving relationships cannot sustain validation for either partner. In light of your Christian faith, you may want to place your trust in God and find sustaining validation in your faith before you will be able to have a meaningful relationship with a woman.

Just my 2c. Feel free to disregard any part or all of it that does not speak to you.

She wasn't "last girlfriend" -- we never dated; we only talk for a couple of days through dating site.



I am a virgin and want to stay virgin till marriage, yes. However, I don't limit myself to virgins: since nobody seems to date me as is, why options 100-fold by limitting to virgins? I do, however, tell girls -- who aren't virgins -- that they won't have sex in the relationship "with me".



I go to church from time to time, I guess not regularly since I am busy with school. But, during the time when I do go to church, nobody seems to approach me.



I participate in christiandatingforfree.com but its really rare for someone to respond to my messages.



Yes, this is something I encountered many times: women assume I am not interested in what they have to say since I keep going on and on about myself. But what they don't get is: why can't I be interested in both?



I actually do. I want the woman to rescue me from my loneliness and ostracism.



I am already 39, so how can you say its before my time?



I am not saying I want to give up my life for the sake of relationship. Rather, I am saying that there are few PREREQUISITES for being whole. In my case, they are:

a) Food+shelter
b) Career
c) Relationship
d) Friendships

As it stands, I have a; as far as b, I "sort of" have it, but it doesn't go that well. As far as c and d, I totally lack it. So thats why I am frustrated.



I been told that a lot, but this sounded like a cop-out. Especially since some of the people who told me that in fact told me relationship with a woman isn't necessary -- and they were married -- so if relationship wasn't necessary, why did they get married? It seems like what they REALLY meant is that I shouldn't date due to Asperger -- but they didn't want to come out and say it this way, so instead they talked about God.

Yes, I hear you and amazingly it has all been said by others. The only substantially different thing you are stating is your strong devotion to your faith. It is not a cop out to rely on faith. If you don't see that, you haven't plunged deeply enough into your faith.

If you don't go to church and don't social within church groups and activities, you are not going to find the kind of woman you are looking for. That said...

You are quite off base if you expect another person to make you whole. That may be part of your frustration. I am pretty oriented to taking life as it is, rather than how I want life to be, or how I think life should be. That is a process. I started when I was in my 30s but I probably did not really feel it in my guts until I was in my 50s and am working on it still.

I know it doesn't sound like it, but I really do have compassion for where you are in this stage of your life. I hope with time you will feel better about yourself and find the things in your life that make it worthwhile.

In light of some other posts, perhaps I have taken your OP entirely wrong and if so, I apologize. I thought you were looking for suggestions for improving your life. But perhaps you were looking for validation about your condition. If so, I am sorry you are alone and suffering. I will stop making suggestions that seem to be not what you are looking for.

I hear your frustration QFT.

That can also be their way of saying, "I don't know what to say because I can't relate so I'm going to say something that kind of sounds positive."

What I've gleaned from this thread is that you really need to put forth some effort to take the initiative. People often assume that quiet folks want to be left alone and won't approach.

It's taken me a long time to develop the skills to go up and start conversations with others.

And with women, yes you need to show some interest in them otherwise they will think that you are arrogant and self absorbed and that's a big turn off. Conversely if they're making all the conversation and you don't really engage then that's also a turn off. You need a nice middle ground.

You hit the nail on the head when you used the words "can't relate". But this even further underscores my frustration. Ask yourself what does it mean "not to relate"? It means that they are assuming I don't feel anything they feel and, instead, I feel something that UFO feels, so they can't relate to feelings of UFO. I mean if they knew that what I feel is loneliness and need for validation, why is it so hard to relate to it? Yes you can argue that I am weak, insecure, or even a coward. But the one GOOD thing those words share is that you can RELATE to them and this is MUCH better than to tell me that you can't relate to me. Because you see, if you can relate to me, it means I am still a human -- yes I can be a weak human, insecure human, etc. but I am still a human! But if you can't relate to me, then you are telling me that no I am not even a human. And being told I am not a human is A LOT worse than being told all those other things that pertain to humans.

And back to the point of the thread. So as I talked about in the OP, I have emotional needs that people don't seem to acknowledge. So the fact that they can't relate to me, seems to only confirm what I said. If they were to acknowledge my emotions they would be able to relate to them. If they can't relate to it, that means they don't think I feel those things I am painfully aware that I feel. And you see how frustrating that is?



And what if I quite most of the time but then I go on facebook and complain about it? If I want to be left alone, why am I complaining about it on facebook? Thats what I don't get. Why don't they ask themselves that obvious question that stares them into the face?



See how you used the word "interest". And this once again underscores the question that I am asking. If I didn't have interest in them, I wouldn't be sitting here so frustrated that they don't talk to me. So isn't it ridiculous that they reject me for my supposed lack of interest -- and yet I have so much interest that I spend every walking hour obsessing about it?!

Re-read what I said. I said I do go -- just not regularly. The reason I don't go regularly is that I am at school and am busy and oftentimes behind. However, IF the times when I did go to church were helping me socialize then I would work harder on making time to go. It all about cost-benefit analysis. The cost is time away from studies, the benefit is meeting people. But the times when I go to church most people don't talk to me, thats why its not enough of a benefit to make me go. But I go to church perhaps every second or third week or something like that, I also don't go to the same church I tend to alternate, so in any given church I am not that regular.



So were you able to find a husband? I know that for women its even worse than for men since, at your current age, you will no longer be able to have kids. To me having kids is really important: if I don't pass my genes it would feel like my geneticl line is being genocided for Asperger. But what about yourself, were you able to have kids?



What makes you assume I am not looking for suggestions? Looking for validation and looking for suggestions doesn't exclude one another. I am looking for both.