The Nice Guy Dileema

Post Reply New Topic

This is what I'm afraid of becoming: an unfeeling narcissist...



Well I guess that works if you have a masochism complex. But I don't. And rejection is bloody painful. I'd rather walk on hot coals than get myself rejected again.

If you don't risk rejection then you will NEVER get a girlfriend. It's all about how you handle rejection. Yes it hurts but like anything else in life you learn how to deal with it.

Hi ladyrain, I enjoyed reading that, thanks for posting. I have a few issues over point 1, the rest is great. How could we go from seeing love/relationships as being rare, to not? Do you think this is true for those of us on the spectrum? And if it is indeed ourselves keeping others and relationships from ourselves, how could we go about understand why and how we were doing so?

Question to anyone interested really.

Hi there. Yes point 1 seems like a kick in the teeth really. I wasn't quite sure what to make of it.
As to what we can do, I have a bit of an idea, but it's difficult to put into words.



It is true that people make relationships with other people that they come across, so in principle it's a natural thing that people do, and it can't be that hard. It's more about proximity than either rocket science or magic. I've often wondered how people with all sorts of different difficulties seem to manage to find partners, but they do it all the time. So relationships are abundantly available, because you can see them everywhere. That's the problem, because it's unpleasant to not make friends or get dates/partners when everyone else can. There's no point in denying it's difficult for us - and that won't change, but maybe we make it harder than it needs to be, and can do something to make it easier.


1. Communication is not the only difficulty we have, but it is the problem which makes us/autism invisible. There are two sides to it. The first is that we don't communicate in a way others understand. The second is that we don't see communication directed at us, and therefore might think it is rare, when it may not be.

2. We are rarely perceived to be the people we think we are. What we show does not reflect what we are. Some people are seen as arrogant, scary, others withdrawn, shy, aloof. What we show to others are our defense mechanisms against them. (Ok, I'm generalising.)

3. Those defense mechanisms reflect what we think about the world we live in and the people we meet. If you (naturally) come to believe that the whole thing is very hard work, or too difficult to understand, or that you are too broken, that must come across to other people. So does "go away, leave me alone".

4. If it is communication which is the divide, can we change how we think of ourselves, so that we portray a more realistic image, "I am a person, just like you, good and bad, just as valid as anyone else, I'm quite interesting, you'd probably like me, but I have communication problems which you don't, can you help with that'. Isn't that the message which no-one seems to recognise? If we can really acknowledge that about ourselves, would we portray it in our outward behaviour, and maybe attract people who are capable of bridging the communication gap?
(The autistic equivalent of CBT? trying to identify what might actually make a difference)

Most of us have already been successful at attracting grotty elements in life, we don't set out to do that on purpose. Can we think better of ourselves and attract less grot? Is it possible to add the mental equivalent of carrying a white stick into the way we portray ourselves? That probably sounds odd. I suspect we all learn to hide our vulnerabilities too well, but if we were able to show them somewhat, would we get more understanding?

I don't mean act like a loser, and I don't mean make yourself more vulnerable to bad attitudes. As I said, we already know how to get the bad bits.

* * *

People often ask the question "How do you explain AS?". We all know about the misconceptions, and the label doesn't help much in casual conversation because it doesn't invoke understanding. If someone says "I'm an ex-alcoholic." that invokes information which doesn't need to be explained. Labels are shorthand. But autism/AS isn't effective shorthand, and adequate explanation takes a long time.

But if communication is the stumbling block, then we need to find ways to explain "I have some difficulties with social communication, therefore you need to communicate clearly, and I will try to do the same." If you can get that point across, and have it accepted, do you then get the time and opportunity to be seen as yourself? We need simple easy explanations that another person doesn't have to interpret. Even the words 'non-verbal communication' might not mean much, although 'body language' is probably well recognised.

If you said to someone else "When it comes to body language and facial expressions, either yours or mine, assume I'm blind, so you may need to vocalise more. When it comes to tone of voice and some aspects of speech, assume I'm deaf, so you may need to explain more clearly." it might be easier to understand than "I have autism/AS". If you want to find people who can understand, then why not be upfront about it; explain, don't apologise. Sure, some people will be put off, but they probably wouldn't be what you need anyway.

If we want compassionate people in our lives, will we find them if we allow ourselves to be seen as we are, even if it is a daunting challenge to do so? Not every little detail, just enough to explain why you might seem 'different' to talk to. The rest can wait.

Maybe for attractive NTs with money. :/

Being most people are not overtly attractive, or have a lot of money, and are still in a relationship, I dispute your claim.

I found point 7 very uncomfortable. (And that there were 7 1/2, but that's being pedantic.) The rest seem to be good points of view.

The idea sounds good, I'm sure I try to see the best in others, but I think in practise this is where I have had problems, and seeing it written down made me wonder if it's possible to be aspie and ever get it right. Having strong viewpoints, what I think of as good in someone might be what the other person thinks of as negative. Or vice versa. And if my attitude is realistic, how can I ignore negative points?

Yeah, but NT. NT

Hi ladyrain. Thanks for addressing my question. I was thinking about it on the bus today. I didn't necessarily want answers, but more of a provocation of thought, which is what I got.

I'm okay with 7. I'm slowly coming to terms with making verbal or non verbal appreciation of people. Even if I'm not that happy about it, I think it's something I do for others. I always try now to appreciate others as far as I can.

I think Buddhist philosophy and practice has helped me a lot with this one. I think realism and positivity are completely compatible. Bad things happen sometimes; that's realism. Reacting to them positively; that's positivity without denying that something bad has occurred and without negativity.

Anyway, I think the laws are unfailing enough, it's just that we fail to follow them

I might add more thoughts another day.

Actually, I want to poke holes in #6 now as well

Okay, attached, possessive dependent. Check. I would say they are all negatives.

But happy? High, excited? Those are my favourite parts. Is real love meant to be prosaic and even keeled? I don't know. Maybe I've never been in love.



Really? I've found everything I've ever done in my life pretty painful at some time or other. Perhaps I'm not living a real life.

I find it a bit odd to suggest that 'real' love is never a struggle. Maybe we are supposed to drop relationships at the drop of a hat as soon as either pain or struggle arise.

I agree that happy, high and excited are positives. I agree that possessive and dependent are negatives. I disagree that attached is a negative. I don't think it is. Attachment is being bonded to another person (without possessing them). If you don't feel a bond of attachment, what exactly do you feel? I wonder what the writer feels is love if it comes devoid of pretty much all feelings?



Here I wholeheartedly agree. So does whoever coined traditional wedding vows. There is a reason that "for better or worse" are part of the traditional wedding vows. It is unrealistic to assume that you can spend a lifetime with somebody and never once have to share a painful "for worse". It's how you get through those times that makes or breaks a relationship.

I am also a parent. When you become a parent, you realize just how much struggle and pain are involved with love. There are many aspects of raising a child which are extremely painful. And they would be less painful if we did not love our children so much.

Whoever wrote this seems to regard "true love" as being completely free of any sort of human feeling. Is it possible to love somebody and simultaneously be completely emotionally detached from them? I'm not sure what the writer even means by "love", since it seems to involve no strong feelings of any sort.

*holds up flame shield*

Look, we could argue all day about this but I probably won't change my mind unless I experience it otherwise. Whatever dude. :/

Last edited by Erisad on 07 Sep 2010, 7:14 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Hmm, good call on 'attached' there, Janissy. I almost lumped it in with good, then swung the other way. I can see it two ways; Buddhist way, and the standard way. I'm not sure which is which for me any more.

I think you are right when you say attachment = bond, and that is good, it keeps you together. That's nature, right? It creates a stronger foundation for building a family.

Interesting to hear your perspective as a parent too.

Stand outside a Wal-Mart and note what all the couples look like. Ask oe of the guys what he does on occasion. You will see what I mean.

Trust me, if you asked those men if they would prefer it if their wife was hot, they would agree even if they won't admit it out of fear of their wife smacking them. Even if the man is fat, he still expects and pines for a hot woman. It's what society has taught him. Men are ridiculed by their peers if he dated a fat chick. It sucks, but it's true. :/

What he does on occasion? What do you mean by that? Hobbies and stuff? *confused face*