Why do they marry them?

Post Reply New Topic

Here some theories why they marry them:

1- From my first post here :

2- Those men are unbelievably sexy or/and good in bed.

3- Those men are rich or have very good paying jobs or very successful.

4- Those women didn't expect their future AS husbands would be so socially inept in their daily life.



Btw, why 99% of those threads are about wives nagging about AS husbands and not the other way around?

I theorize that NT men don't care so much if their aspie wives don't like to socialise much, don't have such NT social needs, have geeky interests that keep them in the house... in fact, these qualities become distinctly positive.

So you mean that "NT" women are generally more "NT" than "NT" men?

makes sense....

NT men partners of aspies are less likely to moan on a forum, perhaps they are more likely to give the 'aspie b*tch' a slap?

<edit, I am joking>

Last edited by lotusblossom on 27 Feb 2011, 6:24 pm, edited 1 time in total.

What's that? a new species?

implying nt men like to hit their women? D:

I was not serious, but I think that the gender difference in 'threads moaning of spouses' is just as likely caused by Nt men wanting to hit their aspie wives (rather than moan) as by NT men being all happy with their aspie wives.

I expect the moaning threads gender difference does come from the 'difference ways' of women, who talk about things rather than a masculine approach which would take action rather than talk.

I dont know, maybe NT men are more likely to go straight for the divorce?

i dunno, i think women just like to talk problems through and men tend to be more strong and silent?

no... we just stay silent and grip our hands 'cause we know what will happen to us if we interrupt

damn straight!

@CoalBogey, were my comments more horribly condescending than calling someone else's comments crap? Sorry, the beliefs expressed are not accurate, and they're not helpful.



@flamemasterelan, your inferences are based on your own values, experiences and beliefs. You're stating those inferences as though they're facts - and they're nothing of the sort. Here's the post:

My ASBF and I made a deal this week -- I laid out that I will call the cops if he gets violent again. AND he needs to move money into my account. And give me the car. And keep working and supporting me till I get my own income (this is payback for when I supported him for years). AND I'm going to my sister's for a couple weeks while his sister moves out. AND no more harsh words or negating Lemon, because we are now FRIENDS AGAIN and friends don't berate each other.

I feel better. I feel I'm holding the reins of my own horse.

Ah, how revealing of our nutty relationship that not only do I feel empowered, but my boyfriend feels these are ALL THE RIGHT THINGS TO DO -- and HE feels better doing them. "We are friends again!" -- he's such a little boy!

Here are the facts: her bf became violent with her; she's supported him financially for years; there is apparently friction being caused by her bf's sister living with them, and she's leaving until the sister finds a place of her own; her bf has apparently berated someone/something named Lemon, and that's going to stop; she expects quid pro quo in terms of financial support from him while she goes back to work (and apparently transportation to facilitate working).

From these paragraphs, you've inferred the following:



Hmm....so this girl is controlling, manipulative, and she's trying to isolate him from his support structure? Or....here's another interpretation: she's made it clear that she won't tolerate violence; she won't live in the same house with the sister (who could have any number of issues of her own); she won't tolerate being berated; she wants a roof over her head while she gets back to work - the same roof she kept over his head for many years while he didn't work. You're assumptions about this woman's actions and motivations are truly based on your beliefs and experiences (as are mine, btw). The difference between the two of us is that I understand that we don't have all the facts about this couple, their history, the events that took place that brought them to where they are, etc. You're filling in the gap those missing facts create with your own assumptions and beliefs, while I'm trying to point out what we don't know - what we can't know - because the gap exists.

*sigh*

You can state the "facts" as much as you want. Her post was condescending, and she came off as a b***h. She's bragging on a message board about how she put her Aspie in his place, and then has the nerve to to talk about how pathetic he is for buying into everything.

There are two sides to every story. But usually your side makes you look more positive. I'm not "placing my beliefs" or "filling in the gaps" on anything. I'm reading WHAT SHE WROTE.

There are no quotes required - I stated what the poster wrote.



Yes, your interpretation of her comments betray your opinion of this poster as a condescending, bitchy, braggart. But while you've got all kinds of opinion, what you lack is context. You have no way of knowing what her frame of mind is, whether she speaks with condescension or irony; whether she is bragging or simply communicating the resolution of a difficult situation to people who have offered her advice. She never use the word "pathetic" - you did.

Pathetic is clearly implied in her last statement. "He's such a little boy!" That's condescending, mean-spirited and it belies the meaning of her entire post.

I've brought that exact post to several of my NT friends, and they feel the same way. Though, their exact words were that she was a "crazy b***h" and that her ASBF would be better off without her. So please, stop trying to tell me that I'm placing "my beliefs and experiences" on this, especially since you're berating me for not paying attention to the context while at the same time telling me what my context is. It's a bit hypocritical, really.

And where's the other end of this so-called "deal"?
We really need to know the other side of the story, though until now, I really don't feel any sympathy for her... the way she tells it, it sounds more like she's playing the defenseless victim rather than actually being such... the mention of "if he gets violent again" is the only thing in her favor, and I still have my doubts about what that actually means (it could be that he had a tantrum and broke some stuff, not necessarily that he hit her or anything like that).

I actually said that to my friend. That the only thing in her favor, really, is that he apparently got violent, but he probably didn't hit her, seeing as how she's so comfortable laying down the law with him on every movement of his life.

(and thank you, I was starting to feel crazy on this forum)