User talk:66.86.240.126

Number cruncher, what do you mean by 'autist'? 82.44.143.26 (talk) 16:54, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
 * https://lmgtfy.com/?q=autist &mdash; Unsigned, by: 66.86.240.126 / talk
 * Gotcha, you're another lazy idiot. 20:39, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Yeah, or OP is a facetious idiot asking a question they damn well already know the answer to. &mdash; Unsigned, by: 66.86.240.126 / talk


 * If you want me to defend my erasing of that comment, I did it because it displayed shockingly little self awareness.
 * 1) Affective displays are spontaneous gestures. You do not "ask" your partner for more affection, any more than you can ask somebody to change their emotional state. The demand itself negates the spontaneity. People's underlying feelings towards each other are measured more by their spontaneous gestures than their ability to conform to requests.
 * 2) The wording of the sentence with the opening "relationship problems seldom involve one person" implies that the other party shares responsibility for "not asking". Sorry, that is absolutely not how relationships work. If your partner accuses you of being distant and not being affectionate enough, you don't get to respond "but you never asked me to be more affectionate" or "geez, I didn't know you wanted me to be more affectionate". Try it out for me in case you're convinced it works.
 * 3) There absolutely is potential to make a "it takes two to tango" argument here, but the given example in the article was terrible. Somebody more invested in the issue should come up with a better one, which is why I left the original statement but removed the example. &mdash; Unsigned, by: 66.86.240.126 / talk
 * I was 'making a point' with my comment.
 * Should the sentence be 'only one person'? Relationships are always more complex than they superficially appear - and one should be able to communicate preferences and dislikes. 82.44.143.26 (talk) 16:35, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
 * No the sentence should not be 'only one person', I just explained that the argument itself was valid but that the example given was bad. Of course communication is an important role in any relationship, you're still missing the point. Reading rationalists describing relationships is like reading field ecologists describing the courting behaviors of different species. The point here is about spontaneity and the fact that there are certain expectations in a relationship that do not need to be asked and in fact can be negated by being requested. Despite how futile I make the scenario out to be, chances are if you're willing to divorce somebody over not being affectionate, they probably asked more than once anyway. Do they share some culpability for not being understanding of their partner's disability? Yes. Do they share culpability for "not asking for affection"? No. First of all, they shouldn't have to ask, second of all, affection is a spontaneous gesture, and as anybody in a successful relationship will tell you, it's the "little things" that count, it's the random "I love you"s, the occasional gift, the "this made me think of you", the little things that simply cannot be asked for. These things, the things people do when they aren't asked, are better signals for their level of affection than their words could ever be. &mdash; Unsigned, by: 66.86.240.126 / talk
 * Your reply is unclear as to who is doing what to whom ('...you're... they ... asked').
 * We all come from different (cultural, family, other) contexts - so sometimes it can be appropriate to say 'I would (really) like it if you do X' - nobody is a mind-reader. 82.44.143.26 (talk) 18:18, 9 September 2019 (UTC)