• Welcome to Autism Forums, a friendly forum to discuss Aspergers Syndrome, Autism, High Functioning Autism and related conditions.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Private Member only forums for more serious discussions that you may wish to not have guests or search engines access to.
    • Your very own blog. Write about anything you like on your own individual blog.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon! Please also check us out @ https://www.twitter.com/aspiescentral

My Wife wants me to prove I will defend her!

thejuice said:
Not if they act the fool and feel entitled to use the boyfriend/husband as a personal unpaid bodyguard, that's just toxic.
Click to expand...

Husbands and wives should always have each other's back. Parents should always protect their children. "Personal unpaid bodyguard" is very unrelated to what is supposed to happen in marriages. As others have commented, the OP needs to talk to his wife about what she wants and what he can reasonably provide to her.
 
lunarious said:
1. God made women and men different. God is a He, in Islam. Mother Nature is innocent. That's how i feel.
2. Instinct are dangerous. A female when young might become pregnant while being careless. ... So it is about controlling people's instincts, ... also being manipulative. But not to be evil.
Click to expand...

Did it ever occur to you that the man who impregnates a female has responsibility for his act? Why are you blaming women for men's inability to control their sexual urges? That concept is foreign to and rejected by the modern world.
 
Mary Terry said:
Did it ever occur to you that the man who impregnates a female has responsibility for his act? Why are you blaming women for men's inability to control their sexual urges? That concept is foreign to and rejected by the modern world.
Click to expand...
Males and females are equal in Gods eyes.

Except they are different. Modest women are more natural, unlike modest men. ... e.g. females cover their breast unlike men do, on a beach.

I'd Love a spirit of a female whom happens to be modest. Unlike an unmodest female i'd Love her body. Loving the body is finite.

Christians call it Sex/Body Love or Spiritual Love. I will discuss this in Religious Forum here:

lunarious

Thread 'Loving the flesh and Loving the spirit'

Mary Terry said:
Did it ever occur to you that the man who impregnates a female has responsibility for his act? Why are you blaming women for men's inability to control their sexual urges? That concept is foreign to and rejected by the modern world.
Click to expand...
Males and females are equal in Gods eyes.

Except they are different. Modest women are more natural, unlike modest men. ... e.g. females cover their breast unlike men do, on a beach.

I'd Love a spirit of a female whom happens to be modest. Unlike an unmodest female i'd Love her body. Loving the body is finite.

Christians call it Sex/Body Love or...
 
Mary Terry said:
Yes, that's why it is so offensive that men try to force women to hide their bodies from men. It is a "very old, very nasty way to manipulate [women]."
Click to expand...
This seems to be escalating fast. Where did the force part come from? What exactly does it mean?
Is it manipulative equivocation such as "stating a preference is violence" logic?

Or are we talking about actual (highly illegal) violence?
Or credible threats of violence ("force" can be used for this, but it's a different meaning of the same word).
Or is it the force in question "I will divorce you if you go out dressed like that"

A simple scenario (IRL I'd expect more steps, and some negotiation at each step

1. A man's wife goes out to clubs with her GF's once a week, dressed in lets say "club style".
The man asks that she dress less provocatively when she goes out. She says no, and does it anyway.
He than initiates a divorce.

Nobody was forced to do anything. Of course. This is simply a difference on preferences.

2. The same thing, but if's a BF/GF living in the same dwelling.
So the guy moves out.

3. Same, but GF/BF and separate dwellings.
So they never meet again.

In which case(s) (if any) is the man behaving badly?
Why is it wrong to have that preference, and act on it?

Feel free to claim the women dress for themselves /lol.
But the facts are in: they compete with each other. For attention.

The closest thing to human mating protocols is found in birds.
 
Hypnalis said:
This seems to be escalating fast. Where did the force part come from? What exactly does it mean?
Is it manipulative equivocation such as "stating a preference is violence" logic?

Or are we talking about actual (highly illegal) violence?
Or credible threats of violence ("force" can be used for this, but it's a different meaning of the same word).
Or is it the force in question "I will divorce you if you go out dressed like that"

A simple scenario (IRL I'd expect more steps, and some negotiation at each step

1. A man's wife goes out to clubs with her GF's once a week, dressed in lets say "club style".
The man asks that she dress less provocatively when she goes out. She says no, and does it anyway.
He than initiates a divorce.

Nobody was forced to do anything. Of course. This is simply a difference on preferences.

2. The same thing, but if's a BF/GF living in the same dwelling.
So the guy moves out.

3. Same, but GF/BF and separate dwellings.
So they never meet again.

In which case(s) (if any) is the man behaving badly?
Why is it wrong to have that preference, and act on it?

Feel free to claim the women dress for themselves /lol.
But the facts are in: they compete with each other. For attention.

The closest thing to human mating protocols is found in birds.
Click to expand...

Look at the Muslim faith and then get back to us about forcing women to dress in a certain way.
 
Mary Terry said:
Look at the Muslim faith and then get back to us about forcing women to dress in a certain way.
Click to expand...
If you want to attack the men of a particular religion, say so at the start.

Personally I accept that other cultures and/or religions do things in different ways. As did our ancestors.

Which is interesting for someone who believes in the stronger forms of inherited/generational guilt.
There are few (if any) people alive who didn't have male ancestors who preferred monogamy (or had harems with guards to ensure their wives were faithful).
 
Forest Cat said:
Nothing wrong with doing things in different ways, but I think it's important to put the foot down and say no when for example people start treating women like cattle and pretend it's normal and perfectly fine. 🤔 We must have some limits to what we accept, can't blindly accept everything.
Click to expand...
If that was what was being proposed, perhaps. But as written it's a Straw Man wrapped in weasel words.

BTW don't think I don't understand your perspective. What I don't like is that your position isn't being discussed at all.

The standard procedure is to prove your opponents' position is objectively wrong first, then figure out how to categorize them.

Take a look at my post #45 if this is about women going out clothed in a way that's designed to attract the male gaze.
And BTW, hasn't the mere existence of the male gaze been declared heretical? If so, dressing to attract it is axiomatically not just exploitative, but also evil in itself.

If you don't feel this is about women dressing to attract attention from men, you'll need to specify the scenario.

Modern men don't generally object too strongly to the kind of clothing that's e.g. worn to work in offices, even though many aspects of it would have been considered revealing and provocative within the same culture a few generations ago.
 
Last edited:
Hypnalis said:
If you want to attack the men of a particular religion, say so at the start.

Personally I accept that other cultures and/or religions do things in different ways. As did our ancestors.

Which is interesting for someone who believes in the stronger forms of inherited/generational guilt.
There are few (if any) people alive who didn't have male ancestors who preferred monogamy (or had harems with guards to ensure their wives were faithful).
Click to expand...

You need to look at cultures worldwide before you post something.
 
Mary Terry said:
You need to look at cultures worldwide before you post something.
Click to expand...
This is a stretch /lol.

Let's try it ....

"You don't have a medical degree, yet you dare to breath, eat, and drink."
"You don't have a PhD in Literature, yet you read classical literature."
I'm getting a bit nervous using this keyboard, since I couldn't design or build one. What if I make a lethal error?
 
HOFJanitor said:
There have been instances in the past where she will engage in a heated argument with other people. I tend to take a passive and listening role. I try to take a peacemaker role but she says that i am not defending here enough.

Top be honest I am quite stumped. I know I am not a coward and would defend her of course! She is neurotypical btw! Any help would be appreciated!

TY
Click to expand...
REMINDER:
The topic proposed by OP is * What to do when his wife is arguing with people.*
Further replies to this thread should address that topic.
 
Yeshuasdaughter said:
Maybe she is on her last straw with you, and the reason she did that test, is because you have been far too passive in your relationship and she is scared that if someone really did attack her, you wouldn't intervene to protect her.

A woman should never feel threatened when she is with a man. I'm not saying he should be a thug. But it is natural to feel safe and warm and protected when a woman is married or in a relationship with a man.

Love is a verb, and protection is part of that verb.

For instance, as a mother, I would destroy worlds if my daughter (or anyone under my dominion) were threatened or harmed. That's called Mama Bear.

Men are called to be even more protective and fierce than that toward defending the women and children and elders that they love, ESPECIALLY their WIFE, DAUGHTERS, and MOTHER, whenever they are threatened. They should also have the backs of their friends.

And it's supposed to come natural. As part of honor, and love, and service.

If your wife is being yelled at by a man, your role is never to sit back and listen passively.

If your wife is in a position where she has to yell in a heated argument at a man, it's already gone too far. You are the husband. Man up. Protect.
Click to expand...
Yeah, but how do you account for the fact that people are adults and are accountable for their actions, what company they keep and what environments and situations they put themselves in?
 
Hypnalis said:
It's used in Project Management to describe the very common process of additional requirements being added to the specification during a project, or existing requirement being expanded.
It's one of many reasons that projects so often come in late and over budget.

The same effect is extremely common with the topic of certain kinds of personal discussions, especially heated discussions.

e.g. Person A expects the discussion to be limited to a specific event that just occurred, but Person 2, wishing to point out that that the event is part of a pattern of behavior, expands the topic of the discussion.
Another event is brought up, but poorly integrated into the discussion for some reason, and suddenly we get
"You always/never do that, and the same underlying issue regularly causes another effect type, like Friday last week when you did X and didn't do Y"

Memory is associative, emotions are associative, topics of heated conversations shift and change according to memories and emotional responses.
And conversations sometimes become acrimonious as a result.

Almost every human works that way, including us, but the progression towards higher temperatures is slower in people with good emotional regulation. e.g. pre-teen children are much more likely to "go from 0 to100 in a second" than adults are.
Click to expand...

Yes it's even worse when someone is a grievance collector, very common these days, and they're just waiting to bring up their grudges so you start on topic A and end on topic X. Especially if they're on the defensive on topic A, it's easier to switch subject and go back on the attack.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

New Threads

Top Bottom