Is a relationship with a mentally challenged person "child sex abuse"?

[Enchantment_of_Nyx]

Daddy watching his 'little girl' do whatever is common here.
Girls who are '19' and dressing, speaking acting 13 are common here
The term budding breasts are allowed here.

The rejection has nothing to do with those terms being childish, but the usual bullshit.

This person is writing what they think is an empowering story where a mentally challenged person can enjoy what everyone else does.

This site and the people here don't have enough class to understand that, too busy posing and posturing with make believe outrage.

These same people write or read about 45 year old men having sex with girls who giggle and have underdeveloped prepubescent bodies.

Fact is, at its core this is a brave story trying to portray a looked down upon demographic as just like everyone else in many ways....and of course it gets trashed.

Since none of us have read the story, I don't think we're in a position to assume whether this a is a brave story or a story about something very wrong. The facts presented could go either way.

For the record, I've said before that one of the most disturbing things in the I/T category is the prevalence of Daddy having sex with his 19 year-old daughter who has been written like she is 12 years old. The age that's been slapped on is a fig leaf, and everyone knows it.

I'm not advocating removing the label to get something past. My point is that if the behaviors described reflect an adult, it's not an issue.

 

[jaF0]

There seems to be a creeping trend on this site and in the forums of more and more content being disapproved of -- of the conflation of illegal conduct with whether or not the story is improper to tell or to publish.

Generally speaking, there is no such principle. Turn on the TV. You will see every sort of depraved and illegal behavior imaginable.

I think it's odd that an erotic story website should have stricter content standards.

That's a big part of why I stopped watching TV entirely.

Remember that there are laws in the US applying to erotica and adult entertainment that do not apply to mainstream media. I'll reserve comment on whether that SHOULD be or not.

Again, something has changed here in recent weeks and the limits are constricting like a hungry Boa.

 

[Enchantment_of_Nyx]

My advice is do not write erotic material that involves one party being mentally disabled at all.

No matter how good your intentions are or how well your story is written, it will not be received well in any category, and can only come across as creepy, uncomfortable and will be seen as sexual manipulation and taking advantage of a mentally disabled person.

I've written stories about characters who are stupid, naive, have a personality disorder such as being borderline or a sociopath or who are physically disabled, but all of these characters are mentally competent consenting adults who are capable of making the decision whether or not to have sex.

But no way, never in a million years, would I ever write a story where one of the erotic partners has Down's Syndrome, autism or some other mental developmental disorder nor would I read one.

You may want to look into exactly what autism is. Autism is no longer considered an intellectual disability at all. It doesn't mean someone can't consent. Autism is actually associated with genius, meaning a higher percentage of autistic people are geniuses than the percentage of the rest of the population. Conversely, below-average intelligence is also associated with autism, but those findings are also controversial because of the difficulty of accurately testing intelligence in people who are severely autistic. The bottom line is that autism doesn't equal stupidity or poor judgment. It certainly doesn't mean a person can't consent.

 

[RetroFan]

Are you fucking kidding me?

Guess I'd better go break up with my partner of two decades then, since apparently neither of us are mentally competent to consent to sex.

To clarify I meant severe autism, not cases of Asperger Syndrome or a more mild case on the spectrum. For example, an Asperger's guy obsessed with Star Wars attends a sci-fi convention where he meets a pretty cosplay gamer girl and they have sex after spending a great day together, perfectly okay.

A girl seduces her severely autistic male cousin who rocks back and forth pointing, grunting and grinning and cannot speak as part of some inappropriate sexual conquest game she is involved in at college? Definitely not okay.

 

[Enchantment_of_Nyx]

To clarify I meant severe autism, not cases of Asperger Syndrome or a more mild case on the spectrum. For example, an Asperger's guy obsessed with Star Wars attends a sci-fi convention where he meets a pretty cosplay gamer girl and they have sex after spending a great day together, perfectly okay.

A girl seduces her severely autistic male cousin who rocks back and forth pointing, grunting and grinning and cannot speak as part of some inappropriate sexual conquest game she is involved in at college? Definitely not okay.

I really think you need to look into this further. You might want to check out “Autism As a Disorder of High Intelligence" by Bernard J. Crespi, published in the Frontiers in Neuroscience journal.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4927579/

 

[SimonDoom]

Since its a grey area, I can't imagine why it would be allowed.

That's the attitude I don't understand. Seems to me if it's in a gray area it SHOULD be allowed.

All the points you made are valid, but they don't show that an adult who is mentally impaired is a child, or should be treated as a child for purposes of erotica or content regulation.

Consider a story about a 40 year old developmentally disabled man who has a sexual relationship with a woman.

It might be illegal if there is an issue whether he can meaningfully consent.

But it's not per se illegal. Depending on the degree of developmental disability, it might not be illegal at all. It's not pedophilia. It's not statutory rape. The laws that apply to sex with children do not apply. A person who wanted to read such stories would probably not be a pedophile or have pedophiliac tendencies. The story would not be obscene. No one who published such a story would have to worry about being prosecuted.

So it's categorically different, from an erotica standpoint, than stories about sex with children. We do NOT conflate nonconsent stories with underage stories -- they are different categories, for good reasons.

The reasons that apply to regulating underage content do not apply to regulating stories about developmentally challenged adults.

It's a gray area when the person is young and written as a young person, but Lovecraft is right that this is an issue that applies to many stories where the characters are not mentally challenged. The issue in those stories is whether the treatment of the character as being of age is a fig leaf.

My view is that we should NOT be looking for ways to expand the prohibition on content. Laurel seems to have restricted content in fairly limited, sensible areas -- snuff, violent rape, bestiality, underage -- where the greatest risk of legal problems exists. That wouldn't be true here. There's no risk whatsoever that a story of the type I described would get one in legal trouble as an author or publisher.

I think, too, there's something deeply wrong and unfair about the notion that it's wrong to read or write stories about sex with people who are mentally impaired. While a severe case of disability may vitiate consent, many developmentally disabled people can consent and can have positive intimate relationships, and I see no reason why it's not a fair subject for erotic stories here.

 

[Zeb_Carter]

What in the world are you talking about?

A mentally challenged person who is over 18 is not a child. Having sex with such a person is not having sex with a child. It would be awful and wrong to deny to such a person the right to have sex or to believe that such a person was incapable of choosing to have a sexual relationship. It would be wrong to deny a writer the ability to write about such a relationship. This is a terrible view.

So, if your daughter was over eighteen chronologically, but mentally was only 12, you wouldn't have any qualms about some 43 year old lech having sex with her?

And don't tell me you wouldn't.

My granddaughter is in her late 30's, yet mentally she is still in her early teens. If I found out some sleaze bag had sex with her I would not only beat the crap out of him but make sure he could never do it again with anyone.

ETA: Seems to me it's just another way to get around the under 18 rule. Maybe. Still, an unsavory thought. Yuck. There has to be something wrong with anyone who would take advantage of a mentally challenged person.

 

[Bramblethorn]

To clarify I meant severe autism, not cases of Asperger Syndrome or a more mild case on the spectrum. For example, an Asperger's guy obsessed with Star Wars attends a sci-fi convention where he meets a pretty cosplay gamer girl and they have sex after spending a great day together, perfectly okay.

A girl seduces her severely autistic male cousin who rocks back and forth pointing, grunting and grinning and cannot speak as part of some inappropriate sexual conquest game she is involved in at college? Definitely not okay.

These are superficial traits that say very little about an autistic person's capability to give meaningful consent.

Here's an episode of Carly Fleischmann's "Speechless". She's an autistic woman who's pretty close to the "severely autistic" guy of your description: weird body language, grunts and groans, doesn't speak. But with the aid of a keyboard and tablet she communicates well enough to have her own interview show. I would be deeply uncomfortable assuming that somebody like her lacks the capacity to make her own choices.

Hans Asperger worked in 1930s Germany, in a time when the Nazis were happily murdering people considered to be a burden on society (Lebensunwertes Leben). He classified autistic people into the burdensome and those who were useful enough to keep around. The terminology of "severe" vs. "mild" autism (aka low- vs. high-functioning, or classical autism vs. Asperger syndrome) echoes that categorisation: it's not about the autistic person's well-being or needs, it's about how much our existence inconveniences other people.

I'm the sort of autistic person who gets described as "high-functioning" or "mildly" autistic, because I'm capable of holding down a job and I can mask pretty well - meaning that I've learned to do a whole heap of things that are unnatural and stressful to me, in order to avoid standing out. My autism might be "mild" as far as other people are concerned, but it certainly isn't mild to me.

Somebody like Carly who's more obvious about it and can't mask probably gets lumped under "severely autistic", and may never even be offered assistive technologies, because people assume that the weird-looking autistic person who makes the funny noises couldn't possibly have anything worth saying.

edit: for clarity, I'm not arguing that all autistic adults are capable of meaningful consent - rather, that the kind of physical signs you mention, and "mild"/"severe" labels, aren't very helpful in identifying who is.

 

[Enchantment_of_Nyx]

These are superficial traits that say very little about an autistic person's capability to give meaningful consent.

Here's an episode of Carly Fleischmann's "Speechless". She's an autistic woman who's pretty close to the "severely autistic" guy of your description: weird body language, grunts and groans, doesn't speak. But with the aid of a keyboard and tablet she communicates well enough to have her own interview show. I would be deeply uncomfortable assuming that somebody like her lacks the capacity to make her own choices.

Hans Asperger worked in 1930s Germany, in a time when the Nazis were happily murdering people considered to be a burden on society (Lebensunwertes Leben). He classified autistic people into the burdensome and those who were useful enough to keep around. The terminology of "severe" vs. "mild" autism (aka low- vs. high-functioning, or classical autism vs. Asperger syndrome) echoes that categorisation: it's not about the autistic person's well-being or needs, it's about how much our existence inconveniences other people.

I'm the sort of autistic person who gets described as "high-functioning" or "mildly" autistic, because I'm capable of holding down a job and I can mask pretty well - meaning that I've learned to do a whole heap of things that are unnatural and stressful to me, in order to avoid standing out. My autism might be "mild" as far as other people are concerned, but it certainly isn't mild to me.

Somebody like Carly who's more obvious about it and can't mask probably gets lumped under "severely autistic", and may never even be offered assistive technologies, because people assume that the weird-looking autistic person who makes the funny noises couldn't possibly have anything worth saying.

I'm not a doctor and not am not terribly well-read on the subject, but from what I have read and what I have observed, it seems to me like the best way of looking at it is an interface issue. The interface between the person and other people and/or the environment doesn't work the same way. There's interference. I think for many people, it's largely a communication disorder. I don't mean "communication disorder" in any medical sense, but in terms of how it functions. It seems like the problem isn't having the thoughts so much as conveying them and interpreting and handling certain types of input. Does that seem at all accurate?

It probably confounds the problem that there are plenty of people with autism on top of other conditions. That tends to confuse the issue of what autism is, and it certainly complicates diagnosis.

 

[SimonDoom]

So, if your daughter was over eighteen chronologically, but mentally was only 12, you wouldn't have any qualms about some 43 year old lech having sex with her?

And don't tell me you wouldn't.

My granddaughter is in her late 30's, yet mentally she is still in her early teens. If I found out some sleaze bag had sex with her I would not only beat the crap out of him but make sure he could never do it again with anyone.

ETA: Seems to me it's just another way to get around the under 18 rule. Maybe. Still, an unsavory thought. Yuck. There has to be something wrong with anyone who would take advantage of a mentally challenged person.

This is an absurd interpretation of what I wrote.

If my daughter truly had the mental capacity of a child, of course that would bother me.

But it's not "child sex abuse." She's not a child; she's an adult with a developmental disability. Sex with her would not be statutory rape or pedophilia. It would be wrong, but it's not legally the same thing as sex with a child.

And, regardless, that has nothing to do with whether the stories should be allowed. I believe they should be, and I see no good reason why Literotica should ban them UNLESS it's one of those stories as Lovecraft described where the "over 18" designation is a fig leaf and it's for all intents and purposes a true underage story.

A story about a 40 year old man with a child's mental capacity would not be a story about a child, for erotic purposes.

 

[Enchantment_of_Nyx]

That's the attitude I don't understand. Seems to me if it's in a gray area it SHOULD be allowed.

All the points you made are valid, but they don't show that an adult who is mentally impaired is a child, or should be treated as a child for purposes of erotica or content regulation.

Consider a story about a 40 year old developmentally disabled man who has a sexual relationship with a woman.

It might be illegal if there is an issue whether he can meaningfully consent.

But it's not per se illegal. Depending on the degree of developmental disability, it might not be illegal at all. It's not pedophilia. It's not statutory rape. The laws that apply to sex with children do not apply. A person who wanted to read such stories would probably not be a pedophile or have pedophiliac tendencies. The story would not be obscene. No one who published such a story would have to worry about being prosecuted.

So it's categorically different, from an erotica standpoint, than stories about sex with children. We do NOT conflate nonconsent stories with underage stories -- they are different categories, for good reasons.

The reasons that apply to regulating underage content do not apply to regulating stories about developmentally challenged adults.

It's a gray area when the person is young and written as a young person, but Lovecraft is right that this is an issue that applies to many stories where the characters are not mentally challenged. The issue in those stories is whether the treatment of the character as being of age is a fig leaf.

My view is that we should NOT be looking for ways to expand the prohibition on content. Laurel seems to have restricted content in fairly limited, sensible areas -- snuff, violent rape, bestiality, underage -- where the greatest risk of legal problems exists. That wouldn't be true here. There's no risk whatsoever that a story of the type I described would get one in legal trouble as an author or publisher.

I think, too, there's something deeply wrong and unfair about the notion that it's wrong to read or write stories about sex with people who are mentally impaired. While a severe case of disability may vitiate consent, many developmentally disabled people can consent and can have positive intimate relationships, and I see no reason why it's not a fair subject for erotic stories here.

I think you're overlooking the fact that some people do, in fact, test as having only a child's capacity to perform intellectual tasks, including a limited ability to consider the future. It sounds nice to say they are an adult with a developmental disability, but functionally, not everyone's brain does become adult. I wouldn't be comfortable calling it a child's brain, either, but there are people whose brains very definitely and objectively lack adult capacity.

The points I made demonstrate a pretty comprehensive array of ways in which people with sufficiently severe mental disabilities are not legally treated as adults. It's more the rule than the exception. You're sort of arguing that erotica should be an exception. I don't see why.

Your emphasis is on protecting the privilege to publish on Lit. Mine is on protecting people from exploitation. And again, I'm not saying this story was exploitive. I haven't seen it and know nothing about the people involved. I'm saying a bright line-rule makes sense. This isn't about the freedom to write something or speak about something. It's about the privilege of putting it on this particular platform for people to wank off over.

 

[SimonDoom]

Your emphasis is on protecting the privilege to publish on Lit. Mine is on protecting people from exploitation. And again, I'm not saying this story was exploitive. I haven't seen it and know nothing about the people involved. I'm saying a bright line-rule makes sense. This isn't about the freedom to write something or speak about something. It's about the privilege of putting it on this particular platform for people to wank off over.

I think we have a fundamental disagreement on this issue, and it's been hashed over in other threads, and that's fine. But I invite you to think hard about the assumptions that underlie your theory of exploitation.

At a sufficiently general level, this theory would justify banning all stories with morally objectionable content on the ground that giving people a forum to read such stories may incentivize people to do more of the morally objectionable stuff. I don't think most people actually believe this, or want to adopt it as a working principle. So the question arises when you ban content and on what grounds. My own view is that the bar should be set very high, and we should be cautious about using the precedent of having banned A to justify banning B just because B has some similarities to A.

I think people who take the different view, and want to restrict content, have the burden of explaining and justifying that view. You don't have to, of course, and you are just as entitled to your opinion as I am to mine, but I want to throw out there that it's a highly questionable assumption and it shouldn't be made lightly when what is at stake the amount of freedom the Site gives people to express their creativity.

I believe words have consequences, but I also think those consequences can be very complex, and often unpredictable. As a general rule, the fact that content is objectionable is not a sufficient reason to ban it.

In this case, I can't see any reason to believe that giving people a platform to read stories about sex with adults with developmental disabilities is going to have a bad effect. That just seems very far-fetched to me, and if that's a reasonable assumption then why not just ban all incest and nonconsent stories, period?

 

[Laurel]

I wrote about my relationship with a mentally challenged boy some time ago. when it happened I was 43 and he was 19. I believe there was nothing wrong with our relationship, both morally and legally. Many members believed that it was a beautiful relationship. I even wrote it as a story with more details and tried to publish it, but not only it was rejected because of "child sex abuse", my thread was deleted as well!

Contrary to the editors beliefs, I believe describing that relationship as "child sex abuse" is immoral. Mentally challenged people are not children; when they reach the legal age, they have every right which other people have. it's very cruel to treat them like children for all of their lives. it also hampers their mental and social development - which they are able to reach to some degree. The person which I had a relationship with was actually more responsible and acted more mature than many people who are not suffering from down syndrome.

Hello, and I hope you and yours are well.

Nowhere within the body of the story in question do you list the male's age. In the first paragraph, he is described as "mentally challenged boy in our neighbourhood who had just Became mature" - suggesting a person going through puberty. In the next few paragraphs, he is referred to as "a good boy" and "their child".

Additionally, the story is just under 600 words long. Stories must be 750+ words long, excluding author's notes.

If you have any other questions, please contact me via Private Message.

Thanks again, and take care.

 

[HMILF]

Hello, and I hope you and yours are well.

Nowhere within the body of the story in question do you list the male's age. In the first paragraph, he is described as "mentally challenged boy in our neighbourhood who had just Became mature" - suggesting a person going through puberty. In the next few paragraphs, he is referred to as "a good boy" and "their child".

Additionally, the story is just under 600 words long. Stories must be 750+ words long, excluding author's notes.

If you have any other questions, please contact me via Private Message.

Thanks again, and take care.

Ok. If that's the real problem, I can easily fix it.

 

[MelissaBaby]

I don't think this necessarily has to be the case. Ever read 'One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest'? It's been more than 20 years ago for me, but if I remember well, there was one part about a prostitute and a psychiatric patient, and I don't remember being appalled, when reading it.

Just because someone is a psychiatric patient does not mean they are intellectually incapacitated or incapable of judgment.

 

[KeithD]

It's an area where suitability depends on the content of each separate submission, with Laurel having the right to decide which side of the divide it falls on. She's given her reasoning on this one.

 

[Enchantment_of_Nyx]

Just because someone is a psychiatric patient does not mean they are intellectually incapacitated or incapable of judgment.

And vice versa.

 

[RetroFan]

I'm not a doctor and not am not terribly well-read on the subject, but from what I have read and what I have observed, it seems to me like the best way of looking at it is an interface issue. The interface between the person and other people and/or the environment doesn't work the same way. There's interference. I think for many people, it's largely a communication disorder. I don't mean "communication disorder" in any medical sense, but in terms of how it functions. It seems like the problem isn't having the thoughts so much as conveying them and interpreting and handling certain types of input. Does that seem at all accurate?

It probably confounds the problem that there are plenty of people with autism on top of other conditions. That tends to confuse the issue of what autism is, and it certainly complicates diagnosis.

I've actually had autistic characters in some of my stories in non-erotic roles. For example in my story 'April Leads Julie Astray' the lead character Julie has a younger brother called Peter who clearly has Asperger's Syndrome by his behaviour (poor coordination, struggles to make friends with other kids or tries too hard to be friends, cannot see things from other people's perspective, obsessive narrow interests) but because the story is set way back in 1963 he is just considered 'odd'.

The point I was making in earlier posts is that if writing erotic stories where one of the partners has a condition that could make them vulnerable to exploitation there is the very real danger that these will be perceived as creepy, inappropriate and predatory. For example, a story where a 19-year-old guy falls in love with an 18-year-old girl with Cystic Fibrosis sounds perfectly fine to me. Now instead of her having CF, let's say she has Down's Syndrome. Immediately there is the perception that this story is not okay.

 

[Enchantment_of_Nyx]

I've actually had autistic characters in some of my stories in non-erotic roles. For example in my story 'April Leads Julie Astray' the lead character Julie has a younger brother called Peter who clearly has Asperger's Syndrome by his behaviour (poor coordination, struggles to make friends with other kids or tries too hard to be friends, cannot see things from other people's perspective, obsessive narrow interests) but because the story is set way back in 1963 he is just considered 'odd'.

The point I was making in earlier posts is that if writing erotic stories where one of the partners has a condition that could make them vulnerable to exploitation there is the very real danger that these will be perceived as creepy, inappropriate and predatory. For example, a story where a 19-year-old guy falls in love with an 18-year-old girl with Cystic Fibrosis sounds perfectly fine to me. Now instead of her having CF, let's say she has Down's Syndrome. Immediately there is the perception that this story is not okay.

I agree with your underlying principle. I just don't think that autism is an example of this. Only about 30 percent of autistic people are in the IQ range to be diagnosed with an intellectual disability, and that's even with the fact that autistic people may under-perform on the tests. When more than half the people with a condition have average to above-average intelligence, some of who are quite brilliant, I just don't think it's appropriate to lump that condition in with intellectual disabilities. According the DSMV, it is NOT an intellectual disability. In fact, intellectual disability is a differential diagnosis. When intellectual disability is present, it is added with a separate code as a sub-diagnosis.

Basically, I agree with what you're saying, but autism definitely does not belong on that list. About half of autistic people are of average or above average intelligence. It's not an intellectual disability. It's not a legal basis for incompetency. It's just not appropriate to be lumped in here.

 

[Bramblethorn]

I'm not a doctor and not am not terribly well-read on the subject, but from what I have read and what I have observed, it seems to me like the best way of looking at it is an interface issue. The interface between the person and other people and/or the environment doesn't work the same way. There's interference. I think for many people, it's largely a communication disorder. I don't mean "communication disorder" in any medical sense, but in terms of how it functions. It seems like the problem isn't having the thoughts so much as conveying them and interpreting and handling certain types of input. Does that seem at all accurate?

It probably confounds the problem that there are plenty of people with autism on top of other conditions. That tends to confuse the issue of what autism is, and it certainly complicates diagnosis.

Probably every autistic person will give a different answer to this; I'm replying for myself and don't speak for everybody.

There's a thing called the "social model of disability" which basically says: it's not that people are "disabled", it's that the world isn't designed to fit some folk. In a world where all the tools are made for right-handers, a left-hander is disadvantaged, but it's not because lefties are inherently less capable; it's just that society hasn't prioritised their requirements as much as the righties. Similarly, a wheelchair-using person isn't "disabled" in a setting where buildings are designed accessibility with ramps etc., and a Deaf person isn't "disabled" in a setting where everybody signs.

The social model isn't perfect. Some conditions are just inherently awful for the person who has them, and I suspect that includes some manifestations of autism. I don't intend to invalidate people whose lives don't fit into that model. But for me, it's a good starting point.

Imagine, if you will, a world populated solely by intelligent spoons. In that world, I am a defective spoon. I have three long gaps in my bowl, so I leak badly. Even if you were to fill in those gaps, I don't hold runny liquids, because I don't have the right kind of curvature. Maybe I can get a job in some kind of sheltered workshop, with my gaps plugged, holding something sticky like honey, not very well.

But I'm not a defective spoon. I am a fork, and if somebody stops to understand what forks are good at, we can all be happy.

The medical system is basically Spoon World: it's designed to diagnose, classify, and treat "diseases", and it's not really well geared to discuss people who are different from the norm, except by calling us diseased/disordered.

So, according to the nice psychiatrist, I have "Autism Spectrum Disorder". I am not a fan of the "disorder" terminology, though - that's just "defective spoon" again. I don't want to be "cured".

Communication: autism sometimes is described as a communication deficit. But from where I stand, it's less "autistic people suck at communication" and more "autistic people and neurotypical people communicate differently, so communication across that boundary is harder".

Autistic people tend to focus on semantic content, i.e. the literal meanings of words. Neurotypical people, frustratingly, don't. They say things like "the floor is dirty" when what they really mean is "I want you to clean the floor". Instead of listening to my words they persist in trying to find clues that aren't there, putting more emphasis on "body language" (which isn't universal even among NT people!) than on what I actually said.

Paradoxically, this means that when I'm trying to communicate with NT folk, I end up having to "perform" body language etc. I listen best when I'm staring at the floor or into space, fiddling with a pen or something similar ("stimming") - but to NT people, fidgeting and lack of eye contact are taken as signs of inattention and disrespect. So I have to concentrate on reproducing the physical cues that they will interpret as "I'm listening"... which distracts me from listening. The harder I have to work on performing attentiveness, the less energy I have for actually being attentive.

A few years back, I heard that a friend in his thirties had been diagnosed with a terminal illness. We were meeting up with an acquaintance that afternoon, and she commented on how calm and peaceful I looked. In fact, I was very upset - but I was too caught up with my feelings about my friend to remember to make the expressions that would have cued my mood to her.

These and other misunderstandings happen a lot between autistic and non-autistic people - but somehow the "communication deficit" is always assumed to be on our side. Not on the side of the person who refuses to use their words or listen to ours.

It makes communication very wearying, especially with people who I don't know well - every email feels like a puzzle to be solved, reread over and over for possible misunderstandings and tonal issues. I enjoy puzzles, but I don't want to have to do the mental equivalent of solving a cryptic crossword clue every time I ask a co-worker for something.

(I am not talking here about non-verbal autistic people; it's not something I know enough about to give an informed opinion, beyond noting that inability to speak doesn't equate to inability to understand speech or inability to communicate through other means.)

Input/output issues certainly are an important part of autism. One metaphor I've heard is a powerful computer on a dial-up modem - getting info in and out is slow, but that doesn't mean the processor is weak. A lot of autistic people have issues with sensory hypersensitivity (overwhelmed by lights, smells, noises, etc. - there have been shirts I couldn't wear because I kept noticing the tags, and I hadn't thought to just cut them off!) and we can also go the other way, focussing on one thing and filtering out everything else (message alerts, people trying to get our attention, the passage of time...)

But interface issues aren't the whole picture. From what I can tell, even with good communication, there are significant differences in how we think about things. Repetition and hyperfocus are common with us - e.g. when I find a song that speaks to me, I will listen to it over and over for hours at a time. At work, give me one big project and I will fixate on it and deliver something terrific, but if you give me four small projects I'll probably neglect three of them.

Executive function can be an issue for autistic people. I am pretty bad at "if you stay up late now you'll feel crap tomorrow" situations - there's a bit of a disconnect there between knowing the consequence and acting on it. Think of a room full of highly productive people who are all doing their thing, without an effective manager to prioritise and coordinate their efforts.

I think I will have to leave it there, at least for now, but hopefully that's of some use.

 

[Bramblethorn]

I've actually had autistic characters in some of my stories in non-erotic roles. For example in my story 'April Leads Julie Astray' the lead character Julie has a younger brother called Peter who clearly has Asperger's Syndrome by his behaviour (poor coordination, struggles to make friends with other kids or tries too hard to be friends, cannot see things from other people's perspective, obsessive narrow interests) but because the story is set way back in 1963 he is just considered 'odd'.

The point I was making in earlier posts is that if writing erotic stories where one of the partners has a condition that could make them vulnerable to exploitation there is the very real danger that these will be perceived as creepy, inappropriate and predatory. For example, a story where a 19-year-old guy falls in love with an 18-year-old girl with Cystic Fibrosis sounds perfectly fine to me. Now instead of her having CF, let's say she has Down's Syndrome. Immediately there is the perception that this story is not okay.

"Aspies" are vulnerable to exploitation, though. It's very commonly associated with social naiveté and being overly trusting, exacerbated by the fact that many autistic people have been raised with the idea that it's more important to appease other people than to protect our own boundaries. https://researchautism.org/too-nice-avoiding-the-traps-of-exploitation-and-manipulation/

For that matter, even purely physical issues like CF can present a risk of exploitation - e.g. if she's dependent on him for medical insurance, she may not feel free to say no.

Virtually every relationship has some degree of power imbalance that could result in exploitation. It comes down to difficult questions of "how vulnerable is too vulnerable?" and a broad-brush label like "Asperger Syndrome"* or "Down Syndrome" isn't enough information to answer that question.

*Side note: "Asperger Syndrome" no longer exists as a diagnosis. Under DSM-IV, AS was its own category, separate from classical autism, but in DSM-V they were merged into "Autism Spectrum Disorder" (sic). Some people still self-describe as Aspies, but others (including myself) have shifted towards just using "autistic", either because we feel that the distinction is unhelpful (cf. my comments earlier on the mild/severe distinction) or because we don't want to be named for a guy who collaborated in the systematic murder of autistic people.

 

[vanmyers86]

Bramblethorn, thank you for providing this detailed explanation. You have helped me to better understand your world, and have made me think about how I might communicate more effectively with others.

 

[SimonDoom]

Probably every autistic person will give a different answer to this; I'm replying for myself and don't speak for everybody.

There's a thing called the "social model of disability" which basically says: it's not that people are "disabled", it's that the world isn't designed to fit some folk. In a world where all the tools are made for right-handers, a left-hander is disadvantaged, but it's not because lefties are inherently less capable; it's just that society hasn't prioritised their requirements as much as the righties. Similarly, a wheelchair-using person isn't "disabled" in a setting where buildings are designed accessibility with ramps etc., and a Deaf person isn't "disabled" in a setting where everybody signs.

The social model isn't perfect. Some conditions are just inherently awful for the person who has them, and I suspect that includes some manifestations of autism. I don't intend to invalidate people whose lives don't fit into that model. But for me, it's a good starting point.

Imagine, if you will, a world populated solely by intelligent spoons. In that world, I am a defective spoon. I have three long gaps in my bowl, so I leak badly. Even if you were to fill in those gaps, I don't hold runny liquids, because I don't have the right kind of curvature. Maybe I can get a job in some kind of sheltered workshop, with my gaps plugged, holding something sticky like honey, not very well.

But I'm not a defective spoon. I am a fork, and if somebody stops to understand what forks are good at, we can all be happy.

The medical system is basically Spoon World: it's designed to diagnose, classify, and treat "diseases", and it's not really well geared to discuss people who are different from the norm, except by calling us diseased/disordered.

So, according to the nice psychiatrist, I have "Autism Spectrum Disorder". I am not a fan of the "disorder" terminology, though - that's just "defective spoon" again. I don't want to be "cured".

Communication: autism sometimes is described as a communication deficit. But from where I stand, it's less "autistic people suck at communication" and more "autistic people and neurotypical people communicate differently, so communication across that boundary is harder".

Autistic people tend to focus on semantic content, i.e. the literal meanings of words. Neurotypical people, frustratingly, don't. They say things like "the floor is dirty" when what they really mean is "I want you to clean the floor". Instead of listening to my words they persist in trying to find clues that aren't there, putting more emphasis on "body language" (which isn't universal even among NT people!) than on what I actually said.

Paradoxically, this means that when I'm trying to communicate with NT folk, I end up having to "perform" body language etc. I listen best when I'm staring at the floor or into space, fiddling with a pen or something similar ("stimming") - but to NT people, fidgeting and lack of eye contact are taken as signs of inattention and disrespect. So I have to concentrate on reproducing the physical cues that they will interpret as "I'm listening"... which distracts me from listening. The harder I have to work on performing attentiveness, the less energy I have for actually being attentive.

A few years back, I heard that a friend in his thirties had been diagnosed with a terminal illness. We were meeting up with an acquaintance that afternoon, and she commented on how calm and peaceful I looked. In fact, I was very upset - but I was too caught up with my feelings about my friend to remember to make the expressions that would have cued my mood to her.

These and other misunderstandings happen a lot between autistic and non-autistic people - but somehow the "communication deficit" is always assumed to be on our side. Not on the side of the person who refuses to use their words or listen to ours.

It makes communication very wearying, especially with people who I don't know well - every email feels like a puzzle to be solved, reread over and over for possible misunderstandings and tonal issues. I enjoy puzzles, but I don't want to have to do the mental equivalent of solving a cryptic crossword clue every time I ask a co-worker for something.

(I am not talking here about non-verbal autistic people; it's not something I know enough about to give an informed opinion, beyond noting that inability to speak doesn't equate to inability to understand speech or inability to communicate through other means.)

Input/output issues certainly are an important part of autism. One metaphor I've heard is a powerful computer on a dial-up modem - getting info in and out is slow, but that doesn't mean the processor is weak. A lot of autistic people have issues with sensory hypersensitivity (overwhelmed by lights, smells, noises, etc. - there have been shirts I couldn't wear because I kept noticing the tags, and I hadn't thought to just cut them off!) and we can also go the other way, focussing on one thing and filtering out everything else (message alerts, people trying to get our attention, the passage of time...)

But interface issues aren't the whole picture. From what I can tell, even with good communication, there are significant differences in how we think about things. Repetition and hyperfocus are common with us - e.g. when I find a song that speaks to me, I will listen to it over and over for hours at a time. At work, give me one big project and I will fixate on it and deliver something terrific, but if you give me four small projects I'll probably neglect three of them.

Executive function can be an issue for autistic people. I am pretty bad at "if you stay up late now you'll feel crap tomorrow" situations - there's a bit of a disconnect there between knowing the consequence and acting on it. Think of a room full of highly productive people who are all doing their thing, without an effective manager to prioritise and coordinate their efforts.

I think I will have to leave it there, at least for now, but hopefully that's of some use.

This is wonderfully put and much appreciated. Somebody very close to me has "mild" autism -- it's a person who is exceptionally intellectually gifted, but has executive functioning issues such as you refer to. Most people wouldn't think of this person as autistic, but the executive functioning issues often make it very difficult for the person to get things done. It's very difficult for me, as someone who cares about this person, to observe, and to understand.

I don't want to make any inappropriate observations about your situation, but I'll note that I would never have guessed that you are autistic from your writing. The person I refer to, also, is a very good writer, and I don't think anyone would guess that this person is autistic judging from the writing alone. I wonder whether you think that writing is a particularly good avenue for an autistic person to pursue as a way of communicating with the world in a way that eliminates some of the communication miscues that occur in person-to-person communication.

 

[SisterJezabel]

Just because someone is a psychiatric patient does not mean they are intellectually incapacitated or incapable of judgment.

In Australia it would depend on whether they were being held under various Mental Health Acts. People living in the community can also be under the MHActs so it's not entirely cut and dry. We are talking floridly psychotic or in a full-blown manic phase, not the more common anxiety and depression. I am one who believes the Act is overused around here and am all for giving clients agency.

I can see the inherent sexism around the issue though posted by the OP. Not sure if anyone else has read Colleen McCullough's 'Tim', a story about a middle aged woman who falls in love with the 24yo gardener with an intellectual disability.

 

[KeithD]

In Australia it would depend on whether they were being held under various Mental Health Acts. People living in the community can also be under the MHActs so it's not entirely cut and dry. We are talking floridly psychotic or in a full-blown manic phase, not the more common anxiety and depression. I am one who believes the Act is overused around here and am all for giving clients agency.

I can see the inherent sexism around the issue though posted by the OP. Not sure if anyone else has read Colleen McCullough's 'Tim', a story about a middle aged woman who falls in love with the 24yo gardener with an intellectual disability.

Yep, McCullough's Tim was running through my mind when I checked in on this thread. I was thinking of it too when I wrote a book titled Luther to the marketplace. I wrote that one in the vein of a guy people thought they were taking sexual advantage of when he wasn't as innocent about it as they thought and was getting what he wanted. I haven't written much in this area beyond that, though.