5 movie romances that won't last according to science....

Post Reply New Topic

http://www.cracked.com/article_18435_5- ... ce_p1.html

I know Cracked.com is generally a humour website, but I thought this article was quite interesting.

No.4 "unrealistic compromise" might be important in an AS-NT relationship (or for that matter, AS-AS/NT-NT), as is no.3 "emotional unavailability".

It paints a bit of a bleak picture for couples where one partner is emotionally in tune, but the other isn't; either one compromises too much and loses their identity, or the other has to suffer an emotionally empty relationship. When I read it, I do wonder how couples like this survive. They clearly do. I'm just wondering, how?

no1. "post-truamatic embitterment disorder" is also interesting.

I'd say #3 is the most aspie-related one, just because of the similarities between aspies and vulcans... but that's just me.

Then again, I am a trekkie...

It paints a bit of a bleak picture for couples where one partner is emotionally in tune, but the other isn't; either one compromises too much and loses their identity, or the other has to suffer an emotionally empty relationship. When I read it, I do wonder how couples like this survive. They clearly do. I'm just wondering, how?

By making a choice of what's important. Being emotionally intune with some one is much less important to me that having a wonderful partnership with a person I love and respect. I think a huge problem is that people expect to have all of their emotional needs fulfilled by one person. That is completely unrealistic. I have emotional needs that no boyfriend or husband will ever be able to fulfill. That's why I have girlfriends, my mother, my children, and other friends.

There can be compromise on both sides- and then everyone gets a little bit, and everyone gives a little bit. A relationship is a TON of work. In order for one to be successful, there has no be a rational reason you are together- not just emotions. There needs to be a partnership and desire to move ahead and take care of each other, in the best ways we know how. There has to be a willingness to learn what the other wants and desires, and do what we can to help achieve that.

I noticed . True, the 'emotional unavailability' is definitely a huge problem for some people with aspergers, but I think 'unrealistic compromise' can apply to both an AS or NT partner; the former will have to change to become more emotional, or the latter will have to compromise their emotions.

I usually take the view that people with aspergers should strive to be more emotional/ improve their social skills and in general compromise more than the NT partner (not that they shouldn't try to be patient and understanding), because AS is the minority and widely considered a disorder, but I understand how changing might compromise the character, unless they themselves want to change.

Fair enough. I guess, personally I do not have a lot of girlfriends (none to be honest), so I rely on close family and my boyfriend for emotional support if I need it. I'm lucky that he provides it most times, and I like to think I do the same for him (he doesn't confide in many people either).

I do get a buzz (best way I can describe it) out of successful interaction with my classmates, and I find that often cheers me up a lot, more than my bf could alone, so maybe that's the same as being emotionally fulfilled (normally, I count staving off depression as 'success' and my boyfriend is a great help with this, just by being there).

I agree with you that a willingness to learn about each other and ask is vitally important. To me, that is kind of interchangeable with the emotion of love, though thinking about it, perhaps there is a difference.

edit; apologies for the double post

Thanks so much for posting this link! This is precisely what I needed to read today.

I myself, find that my emotional needs can be satisfied also with friends, my son, even my interests satisfy them (somehow, inexplicably)... However, my emotional needs are not of a certain, finite volume that can be dispersed and divided up between the possible outlets. When I meet someone I truly care about, I develop more emotional needs. When I make a new friend, again, more emotions become involved. If I were to have another child... (I could go on, but I'm sure you get the picture ).

The way in which I relate to (and agree with) the idea that one person would have to compromise too much is how I very much like to demonstrate my feelings for a person, either vocally, or with acts of kindness/generosity. Without being able to do this (someone not necessarily not appreciating those efforts, but even by just feeling uncomfortable in accepting them), I would feel stifled. However, if I were to continue demonstrating my feelings time and time again, the recipient would become more and more uncomfortable, and then they would be the one making the compromise.



Of course any time that two people come together, the likelihood of them being so completely in sync that no compromises need be made at all is slim to nil... And it is quite advisable for two people to express their needs/perspectives, and seek to understand those of their partner, and make any little compromises that would help both to meet each other's needs... However, only so many compromises can be made, in that once a person is compromising something that is so inherent to themselves, or something that truly makes them happy/complete, the person loses (as Lene said) their identity. And then, what good is the relationship anymore? To be with someone who is no longer the person they used to be... The person you were drawn to in the first place? The fact is that both people involved can want the relationship to work out as much as their little hearts desire, but if something important enough (such as an aspect of a person that is so pivotal to what makes them who they are) will compromise the realistic possibility for the relationship to actually succeed, the responsible (and emotionally mature) thing to do is recognize and accept it.

If such a significant aspect is compromised on either person's part, the relationship may be able to continue on, but I would have to assume that one person would be terribly unhappy. And I can't see the benefit of a relationship that doesn't allow for both people to be happy.

If such a significant aspect is compromised on either person's part, the relationship may be able to continue on, but I would have to assume that one person would be terribly unhappy. And I can't see the benefit of a relationship that doesn't allow for both people to be happy.

I completely agree. I am not saying any 2 people can be in a relationship if they want to be. You have to find someone you love and respect. Then tweaks can be made.

The way in which I relate to (and agree with) the idea that one person would have to compromise too much is how I very much like to demonstrate my feelings for a person, either vocally, or with acts of kindness/generosity. Without being able to do this (someone not necessarily not appreciating those efforts, but even by just feeling uncomfortable in accepting them), I would feel stifled. However, if I were to continue demonstrating my feelings time and time again, the recipient would become more and more uncomfortable, and then they would be the one making the compromise.

Sometimes people would be made to feel more uncomfortable. What I have found, however, is that when someone accepts it is a need of someone else's and they care about the person, they are able to accept it and not be uncomfortable with it. It won't happen for everyone, but it can and does happen all the time.

I myself, find that my emotional needs can be satisfied also with friends, my son, even my interests satisfy them (somehow, inexplicably)... However, my emotional needs are not of a certain, finite volume that can be dispersed and divided up between the possible outlets. When I meet someone I truly care about, I develop more emotional needs. When I make a new friend, again, more emotions become involved. If I were to have another child... (I could go on, but I'm sure you get the picture ).

I guess I don't understand this. I have things I need emotionally for me to be happy. They don't change when more people are in my life. I don't need more with more people in my life. In fact, the more I have in my life, the easier it is to fulfill my emotional needs. More of my emotions become involved, but my needs don't multiply.

I can see that. I guess it would depend on if their discomfort with such gestures/sentiments expressed was something pivotal to their character, or less-so, and therefor easier for them to compromise. Wouldn't necessarily indicate a lack of care for the person offering them though, if they couldn't accept it and be comfortable with it.



This might be what I mean, and I interpret it as though my needs are multiplying...

It's hard for me to explain, I suppose... An example, perhaps, is that I used to believe that were I to have more than one child, that the amount of love I could offer would have to be divided up between them, and that the first child would therefor lose 50% of the love I used to have for them. If I thought similarly with friends, I would have to think that my emotions for them, and the need to feel reciprocity, share important things with them, etc would be divided up again if I had 12 friends, as opposed to 3. But this is not so, because when I have someone new in my life who I feel any kind of emotion toward, I develop an equal, new emotional need to have that connection, have it reciprocated, etc.

Sorry if it still doesn't make sense.

I think I understand what you are saying. I do expect to get something out of each relationship I have. I also expect to be able to self-fulfill some of my needs. I want to be able to express my feelings with my friends- excitement, joy, sorrow, anger, etc. If I have 12 friends, I don't need to express my feelings to all of them. To get my need fulfilled, I need to be able to tell some one and obtain some validation. That's what I mean by not having needs multiply. On days, however, when I have no one to talk to, I also need to be able to do something for myself-- write, cry, watch a movie, read, something to make myself feel validated. It can't always be on someone else.

I can see that. I guess it would depend on if their discomfort with such gestures/sentiments expressed was something pivotal to their character, or less-so, and therefor easier for them to compromise. Wouldn't necessarily indicate a lack of care for the person offering them though, if they couldn't accept it and be comfortable with it.

Sure. There are something that people just can't get comfortable with (although I think these are more rare than they are common). With that, people need to move on. In general, however, I think most people need to stop looking for this "perfect" person out there that just doesn't exist.

Thanks for posting. The 'still face experiment' was really interesting, though difficult to watch. I've always found the stuff at cracked to be quite educational, I wouldn't write it off as mere entertainment.

I dont agree with that. A lot of it is science looking at the chemistry of actors in costumes. Furthermore, many relationships can be turned around even with financial or other problems. Many arranged marriages last for life even though they are pretty random set ups. The key ingredient is that the couple decide to stay together as they dont believe in divorce as an option.

It's good to know what you emotionally need and be realistic with what the other person may or may not be able to provide. Personally I do not have any emotional needs that children, or friends, or pets, or a career can fill. So it may seem that I'm asking for a lot for my emotional needs to be filled by a romantic partner and only them. But the reality is that I have so few emotional needs that I myself cannot fulfill, that the only ones left over are provided by a romantic relationship. I understand that it is not a popular opinion to invest everything into a single partner, devoid of friends or family. But honestly some people are just that way. Not everyone likes the concepts of friends or family, or has any need of them. But, that said, this applies to me and some others, but that doesn't make it gospel. It just makes it so that web postings about romance and advice books tend to exclude some people is all. I may be very old school with my views of romance, but at least I am aware of the possible consequences of that and am willing to accept them as a price for not changing who I am.

You say you very few emotional needs that you can't fulfill yourself-- so you expect the few to be fulfilled by a romantic partner. I don't know that we actually disagree then. I, myself, have a lot of emotional needs-- so I won't put them on any one person. But there are definitely some that my romantic partner needs to fulfill. I don't think these postings exclude you at all.

The Han & Leia interaction seems most commonly apt to me. Self-esteem issues abound.

Feel like tossing this one onto the list?
http://www.wrongplanet.net/postt121534.html

Even thought it's humor, it's a potentially enlightening perspective! Seems sorta like Do's & Dont's, maybe?

I really appreciate science for taking away the magic of everything and making everyone look that much more dependent on trivial things.
Not sarcasm.

Just because it lasts doesn't mean it's been turned around.