Intimate rationships.

by **Silent** » Tue Oct 09, 2007 5:52 am

Website wrote: Individuals with AvPD will develop intimacy with people who are experienced as safe. Nevertheless, they will often engage in triangular marital or quasi-marital relationships which provide intimacy while maintaining interpersonal distance. These individuals like to foster secret liaisons as a "fall-back" position in case the key relationship does not work out (Benjamin, 1983, pp. 307-308). As sexual partners and parents, people with AvPD appear self-involved and uncaring (Kantor, 1992, p. 109) as they preserve distance from others through defensive restraint and withdrawal. Even so, these individuals long for affection and fantasize about idealized relationships (DSM-IV, 1994, p. 663).

I found this quote from this website. I found it quite interesting, maybe worrying. I’ve never be in relationship and/or a sexual partner, and I’m not a parent. So I can’t relate to what is being said in this paragraph. Can anybody else? I would hate to thing that if I do find a partner that I might then have something on the side as way, I would hate to become one of those guys.

I've read that before and it does worry me a tad bit. I like to think I'm better than that and could be faithful to one partner but never having had one I don't truely know. I don't worry about it much though. You can't cheat on a partner you don't have, and I doubt I'll ever have one.

The idea of finding someone I could have a relationship with is pretty unlikely, the idea of finding a SECOND person to cheat on them with is laughable.

by **Ak1raK0nya** » Tue Oct 09, 2007 6:56 am

I've had one relationship (count 'em, one.) And I think it's safe to say that I would never end up in a situation like that. It looks like what the author of that paragraph is trying to say is that avoidants would prefer "friends with benefits" over an actual relationship. I don't know how the rest of you feel about "friends with benefits," but I find the very concept disgusting and impossible for me to implement in my own life. I absolutely would not be able to have sex with a girl unless I was pretty comfortable with her. Something which has only happened once, as I mentioned above.

by **Parador** » Tue Oct 09, 2007 12:24 pm

Nobody wants to have a relationship with me, so this whole thing does not really apply to me. It does make sense though. I think I will probably have to find a prostitute to get any physical intimacy. I think that would be the ideal thing for AvPD.

by **Karana** » Tue Oct 09, 2007 3:36 pm

but I find the very concept disgusting and impossible for me to implement in my own life. I absolutely would not be able to have sex with a girl unless I was pretty comfortable with her. Something which has only happened once, as I mentioned above.

Same. I can't even wrap my head around the idea of an unemotionally connected relationship, couldn't imagine being that vulnerable with a person I didn't trust in completely.

I have been in an intimate relationship for three years and I know I am incapable of disloyalty. Besides, I can't even imagine summoning the kind of energy it would take to be intimately vulnerable with two people. It's enough work maintaining just the one.

by **Parador** » Tue Oct 09, 2007 9:06 pm

I think I am far to loyal sometimes. It seems like very few people are loyal. Maybe I should jump on that badwagon and be normal. I should probably go up to Montreal and have sex with several different prostitutes to desensitize myself. It's a plan anyway. A wise chessplayer once said that it's better to have a bad plan than no plan at all.

by **BlueShift** » Tue Oct 09, 2007 9:11 pm

I find that highly unlikely as well. I should be very damn happy if I could have half a relationship, let alone two or more.

Reminds me of an official Justice Department document I read some time ago, where they mentioned that persons with 'AvPD, along with APD, are likely to engage in (sexual) abuse and other violent crimes'. I thought it was some sort of mistake, but it seemed rather sincere.

by **Parador** » Tue Oct 09, 2007 9:26 pm

Are you sure they weren't talking about anti-social pd blue? Their the ones who commit violent crimes.

by **BlueShift** » Tue Oct 09, 2007 10:19 pm

Are you sure they weren't talking about anti-social pd blue? Their the ones who commit violent crimes.

Yeah, that's what I thought at first. However, the document was in Dutch, and the translated acronyms cannot be confused. Second, AvPD was explicitly mentioned alongside APD. I always imagined AvPD and APD as two opposites.
It is probably just a mix up, but then again, it was an official government document which was supposedly reviewed. I'll try and see if I can find it, perhaps inquire about it if I can find an e-mail contact.

by **Parador** » Tue Oct 09, 2007 10:33 pm

I suppose someone with AvPD could get frustrated and do something. I did punch a guy once. He deserved it though. It is a really long story. But I would think someone with AvPD would be far to scared of prison to commit crimes.

Intimate rationships.

Intimate rationships.

ADVERTISEMENT

Who is online