Issues with partners?

Post Reply New Topic

Hi guys newbie here.

Was diagnosed with aspergers at 7 years of age and have struggled all my life with social interactions mainly due to people thinking I'm selfish.

I dont personally think I am selfish but recently my fiance of 3 and a half years and I have been struggling due to me seemingly coming across as self absorbed.

I don't understand quite where I've went wrong as I've only done what I've always done and that's just spend time and spend what I perceive to be a healthy amount of time with her and all my friends and family.

I've had a good think and from what she's said and the problems we've had I think the problem stems from not considering her more important than my friends or family.

I'm coming to the conclusion that the more serious the relationship becomes the more she expects me to commit myself to her and my future family but I'm struggling to deal with this as it affects my usual routine of seeing friends, parents, grandparents etc.

Has anyone dealt with this type of situation before and do you have any advice?

I love her but she thinks I don't care about her when I do and it's hard.

My only advice to you is listen to your woman's needs while you still can. You're lucky she's communicated enough to you so you know what the problem is.

Someone like your, or my (assuming similarities) definition of self-absorbed does not usually match up with what most of the world considers self absorbed. Most people value actions, not words, not thoughts, not concepts or perspectives. Actions. Clearly discernible demonstrations.

I had this problem for years in my marriage of almost 10 years. For years my wife tried to tell me the different ways that I was being selfish and I listened, but guess I never took it as seriously as I should have. Now I'm getting divorced.

If your woman is telling you these things, it's because she needs to feel like she is the most important thing to you. This is not too much to expect from someone you intend on marrying. Try not to look at this from the perspective of what your obligations and loyalties are to others. You can, and shoudl have those loyalties. But your soon to wife has to be first and that has to be unmistakable. Some women this may not be true for, but yours does not appear to be one of those.

Thank you for taking the time to reply

We have have had a long talk about things tonight and from what I gather she wants to know she can trust me fully once we have children etc ie being able to drop my plans with friends when I'm looking forward to them.

It's going to be hard but the this far she's been by my side and completely understanding so I'm hoping I can change my ways.


Feel like a bad person at the moment as I'm used to my usual routine but understand my future wife wants me to put her first. It's going to be hard but hoping I can deal with it.

When you get married,
your wife and your kids will have to come first before the other people in your life.
Marriage is a promise, vow, commitment you're making
to share your life with your wife,
and to generously be open to raising children with her.

Wishing you the best!

~~ the phoenix

Try to think of things this way... I'm sure you'll be feeling you're letting these people down more than you ever actually are. Your family presumably loves you and wants your happiness. Any rational adult who truly wants this for someone knows that a spouse, and if applicable, kids, have to come first and foremost. And in reverse, if your soon to be wife really loves YOU then she will always allow you whatever time your collective lives will allow, to spend with family and friends. This is the spirit of compromise that I hope stays alive and well long into your marriage.

In short, I'd bet that none of your family and friends will feel negatively about you if you're taking care of your marriage commitment. I'm sure they'll understand.

Perhaps you're still too young.

Girlfriends come and go, but your family is forever. Take her with you when you go to visit them, so it counts as something you do together--then she won't feel left out. If you allow her to cut you off from your family and then she breaks up with you, you will regret it.

To clarify here, is she asking you to spend less time with your family/friends? Or it is more she needs assurance that she's #1 and you're interpreting it as spending too much time with them? Very important distinction here.

And, how much time do you actually spend with these family/friends? I mean is this daily, weekly, what?

I tend to have a very opposite view of the above individual. The right woman is a much better find than anything family can provide you. In my opinion. This is for each to decide. Not to say your family isn't and shouldn't be important, but to me it's a little off if a grown man is overattached to his parents and grandparents. Not loves, not visits, not helps, those are all great things, but overattachment is a little immature and could justifiably worry a potential spouse with whom, evidently, starting a family is a consideration.

But trust me, the more often you "draw a line in the sand" (meaning to set a non-negotiable boundary with someone) in a relationship context, you decrease your chances of prolonged continuance. There is a time for having to do that, like if she said you have to stop talking to your family for example, but you really gotta pick and choose. When you are selective about the things you are rigid on, your woman will be more likely to understand and compromise. If you're always setting boundaries, you're going to appear inflexible and intolerant to change. These are not encouraging things to show in a relationship you both have aspirations of being long term.

Yes, that's the general societal expectation. When you marry someone, that person is supposed to be number one on your priority list. When you have children, the children and the spouse are all supposed to be more important to you than anyone else. Your parents, your siblings, and everyone else you know all move down a peg and make way, as your spouse and children become your new immediate family. That's not to say that you stop visiting other people or caring about them, but let's put it this way - if your wife wants you to paint your house red and your mother wants it blue, you'd better paint it red.

Agree at that last point for sure...

For some women, it's probably rooted in societal expectations, gender roles etc. For some, it may just be the product of needing self assurance and wanting to feel special to someone. I've been told in this way my mentality can be very feminine because I get that totally.

Most people want to see proof they are loved. For those people who are more insecure or even just prone to being lonely, they may require more frequent and/or intense validations. This is fine and good and part of what you agree to when you marry, or commit seriously to another. It can also signal reliability to some.

For others, they can glean this from more factual, pragmatic things like taking out the trash, doing the shopping or giving a particularly good sex night to.

Oh, it works both ways. A woman's husband and children should be her number one priorities over all other people, as well. That's kind of the point and purpose of marriage. And honestly, for most people it isn't even a choice, it's just the way they feel and the way they prefer things.

This is very true. Just seems like societally, the expectation has swung wildly toward the man making sacrifices and the woman kind of having run over things after centuries of going the other way. Like affirmative action, were sort of punishing people today for things that their parents, grandparents and before did.

Every married man knows if he steps too far out of line, his wife can leave him, take most of what he's worked his whole life for, take his kids, his car, and cause him to work the rest of his life indebted to a woman who is now banging someone else. And he's paying for it. Some women do not wield this leverage as a weapon, just like in "traditional" gender roles, not all women were viewed as property, beaten and neglected (as so often we're told).

But I agree that in concept, both parties should go:

1. Kids (if applicable)
2. Spouse
3. Others
4. Pets (maybe 3 depending on who the others are)
5. Self

Self should always be last. Which is why both parties need to be full bought in. When I'm married, I see it as not deriving happiness so much from my own pursuits as getting from the overflow of the love my spouse gives me. In a very material world where everything, including people, are fungible assets to be used for their purpose and discarded, this is a dying view.

This view assumes that everything a married couple has is actually the man's property, including children. It assumes the woman has made no contribution, financial or otherwise, to the relationship.



Self should definitely come before pets, and probably before most of the "others". Depending on the situation, sometimes you even need to put yourself first. As the airlines say, put on your own oxygen mask before helping others. If you pass out, you can't help anyone.

Maybe explain to her that it might take you longer to adjust than an NT. That you love her, and you want her to feel safe, but it is really difficult to change your routines, so it will need to be a gradual process in order for you to feel safe too.

It's a sacrifice on your part for sure, and maybe she doesn't fully understand how big a thing it is to change your schedule, because for NTs it's not the same.

Do you think it's possible to feel safe if you do it gradually? If so, then make a plan for how to gradually change your routine so that you are only a little uncomfortable.

If you don't feel like you could possibly feel safe if you change your routine, then maybe it's not the right time to get married.

I could see where you'd read that I'm making that assumption, but I'm not. It really doesn't matter, because the point is regardless of who contributed what, in the vast majority, if not all cases, the woman receives a larger portion. Assuming he's paying alimony it's an even more exorbitant ratio. The kids belong to both people and saying they are his kids is just as valid as saying hers. Point is, if she gets custody, which barring real issues she will, then he loses a lot if cares about being an active part of his kids' life(s). It may have been poorly worded. I tend to do that.

Secondly, anything after 2 is more individual dependent I suppose. There are very, very few people in this world I'd help over my bird. In short, if a building is burning I can only save one, I'm saving my bird over 95% of my family. And 99.9% of the world population. Maybe that makes me an as*hole. I'm ok with that. I wouldn't expect all people to be that way. But I do think in many cases, people's pets are either over or under prioritized. I may be the former. But I'd much rather that then the latter. To me a bad pet owner is roughly equivalent to a bad parent. If you're even a marginal parent by some measures, and it's discovered, you'll have CPS up your behind sideways with their arms up. Any non-canine pet usually no one cares. Horses too in places where horses are typically owned. And self, that's a hard one. One can be overly selfless and selfish at the same time, I know what you're getting at. That one should probably shift up and down depending on the situation.

I guess you can't tell people how they should proritize. I should have said, that's how I like to prioritize.