Board index › Coping in life › Love and Dating

Autistic boyfriend over friendly with other girls

Page 8 of 9 [ 133 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 5, 6, 7, 8, 9  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

mpe
Deinonychus
Deinonychus

User avatar

Joined: 26 Oct 2014
Gender: Male
Posts: 379
Location: Exeter

13 Aug 2015, 3:54 pm

rdos wrote:
mpe wrote:
There was a recent survey that indicating that the majority of trans women are poly.


That doesn't surprise me. LGBT (mostly women though) and BD/SM also clusters with neurodiverse relationship preferences and thus with polyamory.

There might also be a connection between ND communication preferences when it comes to either BDSM or polyamory too. With verbal communication being more important than with mono vanilla.



nurseangela
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 27 Nov 2014
Gender: Female
Posts: 8,017
Location: Kansas

13 Aug 2015, 4:08 pm

Wolfram87 wrote:
In this matter, I can only appear in my own person. That being said, I have on more than one occasion been told things like "Dude, you were flirting so hard with that girl". This after having had some (from my POV) very platonic, amicable conversations with girls who I found to be not much more than tolerable. Not bad in any particular way, just not people I would consider to be interesting, romantically or otherwhise. I can't speak to the situation of the OP, but it does seem to be thing that on occasion happens to aspies. My proficiency at seduction could fit in a matchbox without removing the matches, I will be the first to admit. But when chatting, even with someone I just met, I'd prefer it be on a subject we both like and find interesting, so we can express and discuss more thought-out opinions and ideas and maybe learn something from one another. Does going past superficial platitudes and niceties automatically constitute flirting in other peoples eyes? I'm honestly curious.


Depends on what you're talking about.


_________________
Me grumpy?
I'm happiness challenged.

Your neurodiverse (Aspie) score: 83 of 200
Your neurotypical (non-autistic) score: 153 of 200 You are very likely neurotypical
Darn, I flunked.


nurseangela
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 27 Nov 2014
Gender: Female
Posts: 8,017
Location: Kansas

13 Aug 2015, 4:10 pm

mpe wrote:
rdos wrote:
mpe wrote:
There was a recent survey that indicating that the majority of trans women are poly.


That doesn't surprise me. LGBT (mostly women though) and BD/SM also clusters with neurodiverse relationship preferences and thus with polyamory.

There might also be a connection between ND communication preferences when it comes to either BDSM or polyamory too. With verbal communication being more important than with mono vanilla.


I don't even know what bdsm or mono vanilla is.


_________________
Me grumpy?
I'm happiness challenged.

Your neurodiverse (Aspie) score: 83 of 200
Your neurotypical (non-autistic) score: 153 of 200 You are very likely neurotypical
Darn, I flunked.


Wolfram87
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Feb 2015
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,976
Location: Sweden

13 Aug 2015, 4:13 pm

nurseangela wrote:
Wolfram87 wrote:
In this matter, I can only appear in my own person. That being said, I have on more than one occasion been told things like "Dude, you were flirting so hard with that girl". This after having had some (from my POV) very platonic, amicable conversations with girls who I found to be not much more than tolerable. Not bad in any particular way, just not people I would consider to be interesting, romantically or otherwhise. I can't speak to the situation of the OP, but it does seem to be thing that on occasion happens to aspies. My proficiency at seduction could fit in a matchbox without removing the matches, I will be the first to admit. But when chatting, even with someone I just met, I'd prefer it be on a subject we both like and find interesting, so we can express and discuss more thought-out opinions and ideas and maybe learn something from one another. Does going past superficial platitudes and niceties automatically constitute flirting in other peoples eyes? I'm honestly curious.


Depends on what you're talking about.


I remember the literature of Stephen King being one topic.


_________________
I'm bored out of my skull, let's play a different game. Let's pay a visit down below and cast the world in flame.


nurseangela
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 27 Nov 2014
Gender: Female
Posts: 8,017
Location: Kansas

13 Aug 2015, 4:14 pm

rdos wrote:
The_Face_of_Boo wrote:
You know, I think there's a clear gender divide about love.

A quote I read somewhere:
Men believe that love matters for the sake of it. Women love opportunistically.

Women are obviously hypergamous probably by nature or maybe by culture (it doesn't matter, the consequence is the same), we see it everywhere, and it's her hypergamy which defines who she will love and who she will not, and how her love will be maintained in the long run.

I am starting to believe that women are simply incapable of loving men in a way that a man idealizes is possible, in a way he thinks she should be capable of.

I see men believing in 'love conquers all' more than women, women claim to be more "realist" and having more "realistic" view on love.

It is the men who are the hopeless romantics, not the women. And you can see this in the romance literature of the entire human history.


I think it is primarily a neurodiverse divide. In my current survey, there is a considerable amount of both ND males and ND females that have crushes on somebody they haven't talked to, and also a considerable amount of NDs that have been unable to move on either after dating or a relationship. These are indicators of romantics. For NTs, most people are in relationships, and they have higher attachment scores and lower infatuation scores. For NTs, I think males mostly seek sex while women mostly seek status and alike, neither which is particularly romantic.


Maybe the ND's can't move on because the other person is an obsession instead of it being romantic.


_________________
Me grumpy?
I'm happiness challenged.

Your neurodiverse (Aspie) score: 83 of 200
Your neurotypical (non-autistic) score: 153 of 200 You are very likely neurotypical
Darn, I flunked.


nurseangela
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 27 Nov 2014
Gender: Female
Posts: 8,017
Location: Kansas

13 Aug 2015, 4:17 pm

Wolfram87 wrote:
nurseangela wrote:
Wolfram87 wrote:
In this matter, I can only appear in my own person. That being said, I have on more than one occasion been told things like "Dude, you were flirting so hard with that girl". This after having had some (from my POV) very platonic, amicable conversations with girls who I found to be not much more than tolerable. Not bad in any particular way, just not people I would consider to be interesting, romantically or otherwhise. I can't speak to the situation of the OP, but it does seem to be thing that on occasion happens to aspies. My proficiency at seduction could fit in a matchbox without removing the matches, I will be the first to admit. But when chatting, even with someone I just met, I'd prefer it be on a subject we both like and find interesting, so we can express and discuss more thought-out opinions and ideas and maybe learn something from one another. Does going past superficial platitudes and niceties automatically constitute flirting in other peoples eyes? I'm honestly curious.


Depends on what you're talking about.


I remember the literature of Stephen King being one topic.


Nothing wrong with that. It could be thought of as flirting depending on eye contact and how close you are to the other person too. And how much you smile. Maybe your body language is the problem.


_________________
Me grumpy?
I'm happiness challenged.

Your neurodiverse (Aspie) score: 83 of 200
Your neurotypical (non-autistic) score: 153 of 200 You are very likely neurotypical
Darn, I flunked.


rdos
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Jul 2005
Age: 63
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,096
Location: Sweden

13 Aug 2015, 4:18 pm

mpe wrote:
rdos wrote:
mpe wrote:
There was a recent survey that indicating that the majority of trans women are poly.


That doesn't surprise me. LGBT (mostly women though) and BD/SM also clusters with neurodiverse relationship preferences and thus with polyamory.

There might also be a connection between ND communication preferences when it comes to either BDSM or polyamory too. With verbal communication being more important than with mono vanilla.


That's probably only for convenience. The part of BDSM that I think mostly relates to NDs is the role-playing part, and not the sexual part. So role-playing is also part of ND relationships, and I think it is the courtship phase that this mostly relates to (which is nonverbal). In addition to that, supernatural beliefs is part of ND relationship preferences, which may sound odd, but I think this relates to the romantic part.

I think there is reason to believe that the whole natural neurodiverse courtship is nonverbal and is carried out at a safe distance. That's why quite a few NDs have crushes on people they don't know and haven't spoken to. This is extremely unusual among NTs that start their courtship with approaching and talking. So when people give NDs advice to start with friendships (and thus talking), they are skipping the whole courtship jumping straight into a relationship, which has its disadvantages.



pokeycat
Tufted Titmouse
Tufted Titmouse

User avatar

Joined: 4 Aug 2015
Age: 47
Posts: 27
Location: Austin, Texas

13 Aug 2015, 5:13 pm

whoa.



XFilesGeek
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Jul 2010
Age: 41
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 6,031
Location: The Oort Cloud

13 Aug 2015, 5:29 pm

Quote:

You know, I think there's a clear gender divide about love.

A quote I read somewhere:
Men believe that love matters for the sake of it. Women love opportunistically.

Women are obviously hypergamous probably by nature or maybe by culture (it doesn't matter, the consequence is the same), we see it everywhere, and it's her hypergamy which defines who she will love and who she will not, and how her love will be maintained in the long run.

I am starting to believe that women are simply incapable of loving men in a way that a man idealizes is possible, in a way he thinks she should be capable of.

I see men believing in 'love conquers all' more than women, women claim to be more "realist" and having more "realistic" view on love.

It is the men who are the hopeless romantics, not the women. And you can see this in the romance literature of the entire human history.


Considering that love/sex with men had a high possibility of killing women throughout millions of years of our history, I would agree that women have probably evolved to be more practical in terms of mate selection.

And I've always suspected that men are more emotionally dependent on women than women are on men.


_________________
"If we fail to anticipate the unforeseen or expect the unexpected in a universe of infinite possibilities, we may find ourselves at the mercy of anyone or anything that cannot be programmed, categorized or easily referenced."

-XFG (no longer a moderator)


nurseangela
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 27 Nov 2014
Gender: Female
Posts: 8,017
Location: Kansas

13 Aug 2015, 5:42 pm

pokeycat wrote:
whoa.


Oh my gosh, I love your avatar!


_________________
Me grumpy?
I'm happiness challenged.

Your neurodiverse (Aspie) score: 83 of 200
Your neurotypical (non-autistic) score: 153 of 200 You are very likely neurotypical
Darn, I flunked.


androbot01
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Sep 2014
Age: 54
Gender: Female
Posts: 6,746
Location: Kingston, Ontario, Canada

13 Aug 2015, 5:47 pm

The_Face_of_Boo wrote:
I am starting to believe that women are simply incapable of loving men in a way that a man idealizes is possible, in a way he thinks she should be capable of.

I think young girls often love like this but they learn quick that it's all fantasy.



Fnord
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 6 May 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 60,939
Location:      

13 Aug 2015, 9:18 pm

The_Face_of_Boo wrote:
... A quote I read somewhere:mMen believe that love matters for the sake of it. Women love opportunistically ...
A similar quote: "Men give love to women to gain sex, while women give sex to men to gain love."



The_Face_of_Boo
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Jun 2010
Age: 42
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 33,115
Location: Beirut, Lebanon.

14 Aug 2015, 12:57 am

XFilesGeek wrote:
Quote:

You know, I think there's a clear gender divide about love.

A quote I read somewhere:
Men believe that love matters for the sake of it. Women love opportunistically.

Women are obviously hypergamous probably by nature or maybe by culture (it doesn't matter, the consequence is the same), we see it everywhere, and it's her hypergamy which defines who she will love and who she will not, and how her love will be maintained in the long run.

I am starting to believe that women are simply incapable of loving men in a way that a man idealizes is possible, in a way he thinks she should be capable of.

I see men believing in 'love conquers all' more than women, women claim to be more "realist" and having more "realistic" view on love.

It is the men who are the hopeless romantics, not the women. And you can see this in the romance literature of the entire human history.


Considering that love/sex with men had a high possibility of killing women throughout millions of years of our history, I would agree that women have probably evolved to be more practical in terms of mate selection.

And I've always suspected that men are more emotionally dependent on women than women are on men.


http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style ... 50413.html


Maybe it would be better if we split the thread into two? :P



rdos
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Jul 2005
Age: 63
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,096
Location: Sweden

14 Aug 2015, 1:40 am

nurseangela wrote:
Maybe the ND's can't move on because the other person is an obsession instead of it being romantic.


I think they are the same. You cannot be romantic without developing obsessions. For me this is one and the same. Unless you mean the superficial NT variant with compliments and presents, which really isn't very romantic either since people do this to gain advantages, and not as a form of altruistic act.



rdos
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Jul 2005
Age: 63
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,096
Location: Sweden

14 Aug 2015, 1:41 am

Fnord wrote:
The_Face_of_Boo wrote:
... A quote I read somewhere:mMen believe that love matters for the sake of it. Women love opportunistically ...
A similar quote: "Men give love to women to gain sex, while women give sex to men to gain love."


So how does that relate to asexuality in men? :roll:



The_Face_of_Boo
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Jun 2010
Age: 42
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 33,115
Location: Beirut, Lebanon.

14 Aug 2015, 1:49 am

No, I would say it differently:

Men value love, women love value.