RE: , Janet on Chemistry

[Guest guest]

Janet, What a simply marvelous comment there on past chemistry in your life.    Exactly what I’m talking about.   To reiterate, my thesis is essentially that for SOME (MANY?) AS persons, this literal physical chemistry is something they are absolutely oblivious to.   And as I have stated, and I think too, - both AS males, we have never naturally been able to conceive of such a thing.   To us the only real ‘chemistry’ can be a metaphorical thing term that expresses the developed bond between well matched partners.   Similarly, on the other hand, to the Chemistry ‘aware’ persons on the NT front, the thought that any normal looking human being could be totally unaware of this unseen and subliminal urge and attachment is unthinkable.   As dear old ph said all those years back in his interviews with Bill Moyers, ‘when you meet the person who is right for you, you just know!’   Sigh, if only, if only. On the basis of ’s contentions about Chemistry, - well, sure, I’ve had the most incredible (metaphorical) chemistry with several women in my adult life, - but strictly speaking similar chemistry with a few males.    But NEVER was there any touch of sexual attraction or urge for bed.    I also had and enjoyed intellectual ‘chemistry’ with my wives, when things were good between us.   It did not, however preserve us from the inevitable break-ups.   After separation, it must be noted, that the intellectual chemistry still existed.   I recall that my first wife made it clear that she wanted very much to have a close intellectual relationship with me after divorce, but her new husband wouldn’t have any of it. Again, I simply cannot conceive of just what it would be like to have a chemical push about some certain individual woman, who represents an extra special and unique sexual desire for me.  This is TOTALLY different from simply having a sexual interest or desire for some woman, that could just as readily be directed at and stimulated by any other attractive or interesting woman who might just happen to come along. From what Professor Attwood said to me about the contentions in my book, I feel quite sure that this lack or – or obliviousness to sexual chemistry is one of the many reasons why Aspergers, especially males, so frequently have poor records in the love/sex department; and it is a matter that impressed him as uniquely important and to date, unmentioned by any researcher.    The other factor that I brought up which I think is relevant, is that apart from a poor connection with or comprehension of Empathy, we Aspie males find it difficult if not impossible in many cases, to detect or recognize the REAL person inside the physical envelope of our partners.  This is why we can be so darned literal about what we see in our mates.  I am thoroughly  familiar with my immediate ex-wife.   I know her face, figure, habits, history, voice etc.   BUT I DO NOT SEE BENEATH ALL THIS.   What I am conscious of is a whole lot or series of almost disconnected parts of her.   I lack the ability to put them together, and to see them as parts or sections of a real person.   The REAL to me is simply any and all of those outer factors that I am conscious of at any given time.   It is also, I think, a reason why a truly deep trust in another person can be difficult for some Aspies.   All you are getting at any time from that other, is an ever-changing façade that fluctuates and varies considerably.  (see Stanford on the subject, in her great book Aspergers Syndrome and Long Term Relationships.) Again, congratulations Janet on your marital achievement. And again, , - I rest my case!! Cheers, Ron Subject: Re: chemistry and such I've had awesome chemistry in two past relationships...notice they are " past " relationships. Once you leave the bedroom, if there isn't something else going on it gets boring quick! Me and husband have chemistry throughout our relationship, not just in bed. My two cents....Janet

[Guest guest]

On Mon, 18 Jul 2011 at 09:42:36 +1000, Ron Hedgcock wrote:

> To reiterate, my thesis is essentially that for SOME (MANY?) AS persons,

> this literal physical chemistry is something they are absolutely

> oblivious to. And as I have stated, and I think too, - both AS

> males, we have never naturally been able to conceive of such a thing.

> To us the only real ‘chemistry’ can be a metaphorical thing term that

> expresses the developed bond between well matched partners. Similarly,

> on the other hand, to the Chemistry ‘aware’ persons on the NT front, the

> thought that any normal looking human being could be totally unaware of

> this unseen and subliminal urge and attachment is unthinkable.

Hi Ron,

[this is only a sword parry; pistols can come later...!]

I think I must take issue with your *absolutely oblivious* and your *I

think too, ...we have never.. " bits in the above.

IMHO, " Absolutely oblivious " is a black vs white interpretation of a

phenomenon that in reality is somewhere in the grey scale. OK, some AS

may be nearer the black end of the scale than the white, and may have

very little physical chemistry available to switch on even when the

conventional triggers are present, but " absolutely " is too strong a

word, and I believe there will always be vestiges of that chemistry to

turn on there if the right triggers can be found. Also, I'd suggest

that careful nurturing of those triggers can work to increase synthesis

of the chemicals once they've been identified. Conversely, without

nurturing food, the chemicals become dormant.

Then there are plenty of other individuals much closer to the white end

of the scale than the black end who get going with only minimal

triggering. They tend to need cold water pouring on them rather than

nurturing, but the triggering process is still there, and so is the

possibility of starving them out.

Now in my own case, I guess I'm somewhere in the dark grey area at the

moment, but given the right nurturing and triggering, I don't see

myself as a totally lost cause. I could still lighten up!

The problem we AS have is that our reactions to situations can

inadvertently and easily turn our partners' attempts to nurture and

trigger us, right off. The whole process of love is a positive

feedback circuit where each party reacts to the other in such a way that

they nurture and trigger each other, and the whole thing grows like a

chain reaction. It's got to remain a complete circuit with continuous

feedback right around the loop if it's to work properly.

> As dear old ph said all those years back in his interviews

> with Bill Moyers, ‘when you meet the person who is right for you, you

> just know!’ Sigh, if only, if only.

You will only " just know " if the feedback continues to be positive, the

loop is complete and the momentum maintained. Quite often that doesn't

happen, of course.

> On the basis of ’s contentions about Chemistry, - well, sure, I’ve

> had the most incredible (metaphorical) chemistry with several women in

> my adult life, - but strictly speaking similar chemistry with a few

> males. But NEVER was there any touch of sexual attraction or urge for

> bed. I also had and enjoyed intellectual ‘chemistry’ with my wives,

> when things were good between us. It did not, however preserve us from

> the inevitable break-ups. After separation, it must be noted, that the

> intellectual chemistry still existed. I recall that my first wife made

> it clear that she wanted very much to have a close intellectual

> relationship with me after divorce, but her new husband wouldn’t have

> any of it.

I look on this (metaphorical) intellectual chemistry as a significant

contributor and necessary trigger to the real thing chemistry, but the

nurturing food has to be balanced so there are lots of other

prerequisites, too.

> From what Professor Attwood said to me about the contentions in my

> book, I feel quite sure that this lack or – or obliviousness to sexual

> chemistry is one of the many reasons why Aspergers, especially males, so

> frequently have poor records in the love/sex department;

I agree our records are poor, but that love loop has many critical

components that have to function correctly in both parties before it

takes off. I argue that sexual chemistry is more a result of it taking

off than an essential ingredient to getting it started.

> And again, , - I rest my case!!

OK, well your fighting skills are certainly to be admired, Ron. I shall

now lay my sword down on the ground, but keep it within easy reach!